Talk:Turkmens

This article is very confusing and providing insufficient or even false information. From the mid 900s until the First World War Turkmen or Turcoman was a synonym for Oghuz Turk.^[1] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk wanted to end the Kipchak, Oghuz etc differentiation and therefore called his citizens simply 'Turks' after the First World War. The Oghuz Turks in Syria and Iraq did not go through this process initiated by Atatürk, and therefore still call themselves Turkmens. I think this is relevant information with the current situation in Syria and Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.182.240 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and have made some changes to the article. The term Turkmen is of Persian origin and began being applied to all Oghuz Turks from the moment they embraced Islam in the tenth century. This is the reason why the term has such a wide use today with many groups across the Middle East and Central Asia using it to refer to themselves. Ancestors of the Turkic-speaking population of Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Turkey that is today commonly referred to as 'Turkmen' migrated from Central Asia long before modern-day Turkmens of Central Asia actually formed as an ethnic group and long before they became distinct from other Oghuz-speaking groups of the time. Both groups consolidated into ethnic groups independently of each other, but the generic term for Muslim Oghuz Turks was applied to both of them by extension. This was also the reason why I removed Hayme Hatun and Kemal Kilicdaroglu from the images. Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens nowadays speak varieties of Turkish and Azeri, not Turkmen, and culturally are much closer to other Turkish- and Azeri-speaking groups than to Central Asian Turkmens. There is also no evidence as to whether they identify with Turkmens of Turkmenistan, which is why it would be incorrect to show their population figures in this article's infobox. There should probably be a separate section in this article dedicated to the ethnonym. Parishan (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Both user falsified , . The estimate for Iran is 1-2% and both users falsified CIA data.--188.158.84.116 (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The Turkmens in Afghanistan are almost 2 Millions. The statistic 400.000 is from 1997 so i think it is Time to refresh it :D Actually theire are plenty other sources but they are in Persian or in Pashto or Turkmeni that is the English side i have found.

https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/15654/AF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsofpersia1999 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In Afghanistan more than 6 million Turkmens living Oğuz Türkmen oğlu (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

in iraq and syria there are signaficant turkmen population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.29.248 (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen and Syrian Turkmen are not part of the ethnic Turkmen diaspora, as they have not migrated to these regions from Turkmenistan. O.celebi (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You wrote wrong Turkmens are in Afghanistan maybe more than 6 millions why you wrote wrong please correct that Oğuz Türkmen oğlu (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turkmens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606150805/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/ruge/2002/00000038/00000004/00375256;jsessionid=1i2j4imsmaj3n.alice to http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/ruge/2002/00000038/00000004/00375256;jsessionid=1i2j4imsmaj3n.alice
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64zwCYLl4?url=http://www.turkmenistanembassy.org/turkmen/history/horses.html to http://www.turkmenistanembassy.org/turkmen/history/horses.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051208094450/http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News to http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=952

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hunan201p:, @Manasam98:, I don't intend to involve myself too closely in this, but I just wanted to point out what our reliable source guidelines (WP:SCIRS say about genetics sources, namely:

Respect primary sources

A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

So that this is clear, the guidelines describe the three types of sources as follows:

A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles. A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed. University presses and other publishing houses known for publishing reliable science books will document their review process. Do not confuse a scientific review (the article/document) with peer review (the activity).

Any sources being used on this article for information on genetics that do not meet this guideline are not RS and should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you can't mention it's Y-DNA aswell ? What is the reason for this exactly, please explain

DerekHistorian (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian and Hunan201p: Both of you should bring your concerns to talk page and solve it here. If you can't reach a consensus, ask for Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Same applies to other articles that you have reverted the edits of each other. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: DerekHistorian is repeatedly reverting this page to include misleading primary research about Turkmens. I removed his contributions in the "ethnogenesis" section because they are primary sources of minority Turkmen tribes from outside Turkmenistan, and replaced them with Wells (2001), as it was performed on majority tribe Turkmen within Turkmenistan. He has also tried to emphasize the individual haplogroup clades of Turkmen and has even lied about the Yomut Turkmen in a study he posted residing in Turkmenistan. Finally, I removed the Y-DNA section he placed at the end of the article. Hoe many ethnic group articles have a whole section devoted to Y-DNA haplogroups, including irrelevant info like the distribution of Y-DNA clades among the ancient Xiongnu (which was incidentally removed from the Xiongnu article).

It is clear that DerekHistorian is trying to make Turkmen out to be "paternally" East Asian, but Wells (2001) suggests that is not the case. Note that DerekHistorian has also tried to discredit Wells (2001) on the "Y-DNA haplogroups of central Asia" page by reverting to unsourced claims that it is "widely regarded as erroneous", without providing any source that this is so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Central_and_North_Asia&action=history -- Hunan201p (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to ping Wario-Man? I can only repeat his advice: you should try to take this to somewhere to resolve the dispute rather than edit warring. If the problem persists, take it to WP:ANI with a few diffs of DerekHistorian's edits, but be aware that if the community thinks you've acted just as badly as he has you might be sanctioned yourself. The solution to this is not, at all rate, edit warring.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant to ping you. Since you have advocated for enforcement of WP:SCIR, i would like to get your thoughts on the ethnogenesis section od this article as well as your comments on the separate "Y-DNA haplogroups of Turkmens" section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmens#Y-DNA_haplogroups_of_Turkmens which I believe contains information you already removed from the Xiongnu article. Do you see original research in "Y-DNA haplogroups of Turkmens?" - Hunan201p (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wario-Man This general topic area wide issue may belong on DR, tbh, the question is if anyone has the patience for that.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: If Hunan201p thinks DerekHistorian falsifies or misrepresents sources, then this case belongs to WP:ANI. He better provides his evidences there. If both users have legit points but they can't agree with each other, then DR could solve their issues. For the other edits, I just mention one example. This removal by Hunan201p is OK. Part of removed text was AsadalEditor's unsourced stuff. AsadalEditor was a sockpuppet and most of his leftovers are problematic; e.g. take a look at his edits on Indo-Iranians and other IE topics which were removed by other editors. He falsified and misrepresented sources. I don't trust any of his leftovers on the articles edited by him. The rest of removed text was a product of another sockpuppet. Sockmaster User:Rajmaan had a long history of copy-pasting and dropping wall of text on articles; usually using outdated, biased, unreliable or primary sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Your request at WP:RFPP for semi protection would not solve the dispute, and it would need further justification. I have fully protected the article for a week and any admin is welcome to alter the protection with no need for consultation. Warning to those who are editing: being right is not listed as an exemption from the WP:3RR edit-warring policy, and observing 3 reverts in 24 hours is not sufficient to avoid sanctions if engaged in a slow edit war. Please post a new section explaining what the problem with the disputed edit is, using simple terms that uninvolved people can follow. Ask for opinions at WP:RSN regarding any disputed sources. Ping me if further procedural information is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm surprised someone would actually locked the page to help Hunan201p who have so much edit warring, edit wars since september. In Turkmen's case he doesn't allow edit the Y-DNA of Turkmen. I asked the the question and he doesn't do anything. Why doesn't he add Turkmen Y-DNA haplogroups himself? I already made talkpage discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hunan201p_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)_personal_attacks_and_preventing_me_to_edit.

I'm using only few examples here. Non-sop edit warring he is properly going to do this for years. Either a troll or have clear strong agenda.

In Ashina tribe page, edit war for 2 weeks with user Beshogur |Leppaberry-123

In Mal'ta–Buret culture-123 page, edit war for 1-2 week with user [User:Leppaberry-123

In Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus edit war for 1-2 weeks with User:Calthinus

In Ancient North Eurasian edit war with Krakkos, Chris Capocci, Bathtub Barracuda for 1-2 weeks

DerekHistorian (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: " Removed extensive POV using low quality references, as well a misinter0retation of a DNA study. WP:SYNTH." I think it is relevant and should be included.

A genetic study on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups of a Turkmen sample describes a mixture of mostly West Eurasian lineages and minority of East Eurasian lineages. This most likely indicates an ancestral combination of Turkic and Eastern Iranian groups that the modern Turkmen have inherited and which appears to correspond to the historical record which indicates that various Iranian tribes existed in the region prior to the migration of Turkic tribes. Turkmens also have two unusual mtDNA markers with polymorphic characteristics, only found in Turkmens and southern Siberians.^[1][2]

Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur: you removed an inline cleanup tag with the explanation: "A nation is a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group".

That's quite a broad definition. The only elaboration in the article refers to Soviet attempts to establish Turkmen national identity based on "a fixed territory and a common language", but it's not clear to what extent this succeeded. The "fixed territory" in this case would presumably be the present nation of Turkmenistan. So that would seem to be the nation in question. The use of nation in the lead section is therefore ambiguous, which is why I added the {{explain}} tag. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The haplogroup information and referannces can also be found in the Haplogroup Q-M242, right in the sections of Central Asia and Southwest Asia.

Haplogroup Q-M242 is commonly found in Siberia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia. This haplogroup forms a large percentages of the paternal lineages of Turkmens.

Grugni et al. (2012) found Q-M242 in 42.6% (29/68) of a sample of Turkmens from Golestan, Iran.^[1] Di Cristofaro et al. (2013) found Q-M25 in 31.1% (23/74) and Q-M346 in 2.7% (2/74) for a total of 33.8% (25/74) Q-M242 in a sample of Turkmens from Jawzjan.^[2] Karafet et al. (2018) found Q-M25 in 50.0% (22/44) of another sample of Turkmens from Turkmenistan.^[3] Haplogroup Q have seen it's highest frequencies in the Turkmens from Karakalpakstan (mainly Yomut) at 73%.^[4]

A genetic study on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups of a Turkmen sample describes a mixture of mostly West Eurasian lineages and minority of East Eurasian lineages. Turkmens also have two unusual mtDNA markers with polymorphic characteristics, only found in Turkmens and southern Siberians.^[5].

I see no reason why you can't edit any genetic information on Turkmen when every Turkic ethnic group has one (except for Turkmen). My edit recently got removed by editor User talk:Beshogur and accused me of being a sock in his edit summary, this is a serious accusation. Kezo2005 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I currently have a problem, the reason I used this template was because user and/or admin Ymblanter suggested I do so and that the page is protected. Due to the fact that user Beshogur had reverted my edit and claimed I was a sock in 20 May 2020, that I had in response, made a talk page discussion and left a message on Beshogur talk page.

I requested he make a sockpuppet investigation to prove my innocence, and the conclusion shows that I'm unrelated to any sockpuppet . After 3 days, I still have not received any response from Beshogur in neither the Turkmen talk page or his personal talk page while he keeps editing other pages.

I already stated in the sockpuppet investigation that even if the banned sockpuppet WCF did indeed edit a similar genetic study he does not own any of the genetic material with multiple sourced references. I added some more genetic references which was from Haplogroup Q-M242, in the sections of Central Asia and Southwest Asia, which also mentions the Turkmen haplogroup genetics. Would someone please help me out on what I should do, thanks in advance. Kezo2005 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This isn't an edit request, and it's not clear what you want to do. Moreover, the page isn't protected is configured for pending changes, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If your edits are being reverted, you need to discuss them with those who dispute them and come to a consensus. And they should have a better reason for reverting if an SPI found no link. For general advice for new editors, try the Teahouse. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to help out Kenzo2005. It's a good thing I checked. I was going to edit the Turkmen page about haplogroup Q but with my own previous edit, but I think Kenzo2005 collection of sources is so much better. I agree with Kenzo2005 and would like to edit for him, the sources he used are all correct. The reason there isn't a dispute is because those sources are all factually correct. How does even dispute on high quality studies. Queenplz (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@TrynaMakeADollar: @Beshogur: we need your opinion with editing genetics of Turkmen. I personally don't understand what's the exact problem. I believe we need to create concensus with others. the sources edited by Kenzo2005 are factual so have a look if there's any problem. I don't even if the ping are working properly. So I may send a message to the talk pages in case it doesn't work properly. Queenplz (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC) @TrynaMakeADollar: @Shinoshijak: trying to ping again. I failed pinging TrynaMakeADollar. Even if I had fixed that template it mostly won't respond according after sign your post, Shinoshijak, I noticed you have not edited since 19 May. I don't know if you lacked interest in wikipedia or still using wikipedia but just can't find anything to edit yet but please give your opinion here. I really don't know who to ping. I searched for people to help me out. The editors I pinged previously either didn't respond, said they have no time, or din't understand the topic so told me to ask others for help. Queenplz (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like someone to help me and Kenzo2005. So far I've pinged the other users since 4 days ago and they have not responded ( it could be the ping doesn't work) so I'm asking for a third opinion. Queenplz (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims are untrue and not backed up by some citations LordAgincourt (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Have anyone realized that not even half of those persons in the first picture are Turkmen or related with Teke Turks?46.114.3.237 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Visioncurve, can you provide sources that mention any of these proposed etymologies that are more recent than 1930? One is even from the 1800s--obviously our knowledge of linguistics has advanced considerably since then. The most recent sources do not mention these derivations, suggesting that they are no longer held by linguists (WP:AGEMATTERS) and thus are not wp:DUE on this page.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, there are tons of pages in Wikipedia where the bulk of their content was cited using sources much older than even 1800s. Everyday, I come across numerous articles, where editors used materials relating to the origin and etymology of certain Turkic tribes or people, from such sources as Dīwān Lughāt al-Turk of Khashgari (11th century) or Shajare-i Tarakime of Ghazi Bahadur (17th century), and others. Regarding WP:AGEMATTERS, it has a clear statement which says that with regard to historical events, older reports tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. Moreover, the works of such prominent specialists of the past as Vasily Barthold and Armin Vambery (used extensively in "Etymology" and "Origins" sections of this article) have never been criticized by modern historians or Turkologists, at least I have never come across any hard evidence of that (even though I poured through a host of primary and secondary material to find one). On the contrary, their works have been reprinted zillions of times and are still used as primary source for citing necessary material in the relevant, modern books.

I also think that it is inappropriate to remove sourced material based on private correspondence. Editors should not remove sourced material purely on the grounds that they think it is untrue. Also, as far as I know, there is general consensus among the Wikipedia editors not to remove sourced material unless you actually think the source does not clearly support it. But I think you are always free to include your own, cited material that argues with specific statements in the article.

I did, though, agree with your removal of "Ethnogenesis" section of the page, because it was indeed poorly sourced. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 19:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It was actually Erminwin who removed ethnogenesis. I'm not sure what you're referring to about "private correspondence."

Just because other articles include old sources on Turkology doesn't mean that it's a good practice. In fact, it's apt to be exploited by certain Pan-Turkic nationalist editors who are very active on Wikipedia through various socks, etc. Linguistic proposals should be current to be mentioned, linguistics is an evolving science and a lot has changed since 1930. Etymologies are not "historical sources" either, they're a scholar making an educated guess (with reasoning usually) about the origin of a word. Some etymologies are not picked up by other scholars, so they are not relevant. Others are criticized by other scholars and disregarded. We can't simply list whatever anyone has ever thought the word might come from, often with very little reason. If current linguists/scholars don't continue to mention a proposal, we shouldn't include it on the grounds of wp:due.

And if their works have been reprinted zillions of times and are still used as primary source for citing necessary material in the relevant, modern books than you should be able to cite this use to support these etymologies.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

An Historical Geography of Iran, Princeton: Princeton University Press, edited by Bosworth, 1984; Works on an Historical Geography (in Russian), Moscow, Published by the "Eastern Literature", Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002; Handbook of Medieval Studies: Terms – Methods – Trends, 2010; Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, published by Leiden J. Brill; Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, E. J. W. Gibb Memorial series, 1977; Boukhara, récit (Heureux Qui Com) by Vambery and Stepanoff, 2005; Hungary in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Times, by Vambery and Louis Heilprin, 2018; Arminius Vambery: His Life and Adventures (Classic Reprint), by Vambery, 2017... And there are many more, but this is not the point in question. The point was not to remove sourced material just because you think that it is outdated or not true, instead, publish you own, if you have any, that argues with the views presented in the article.

By the way, you may want to conduct, at least, an online search about these authors and see if you can find any modern linguist or historian who argues with their point of view or criticize their works; I bet you will come across such phrases as "great orientalist", "brilliant scholar" and etc. more often than anything else. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 20:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Grimm was a great scholar. It doesn't mean we should cite his 19th century etymologies uncritically. Just because someone is/was "great" doesn't mean they are infallible or taken to be so by the academic community.

What are those citations for exactly? Which etymology/ies? Just listing sources isn't very helpful, I'd like to see quotes on the specific etymologies included and links to the sources if possible. There are several, including one (as I've said) by Ármin Vámbéry, who argued that Hungarian was a Turkic language (an obvious favorite of Pan-Turkicists). In fact, several of the things you've listed include Vambery as an author, which suggests that they are less than reliable. Another is a reprint of something by Vasily Bartold who died in 1930. This also does not suggest it is particularly up to date. You can't just list reprints of the books from before 1930 that you are claiming are still relevant.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A closer examination of the sources you've given trying to prove these scholars continued relevance:

1. An Historical Geography of Iran, Princeton: Princeton University Press, edited by Bosworth, 1984. This is by the aforementioned Barthold who died in 1930.
2. Works on an Historical Geography (in Russian) Can't locate, author not listed, presumably in Russian as advertised, but I'm guessing also by Barthold, who died in 1930
3. Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, also by Barthold who died in 1930
4. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion by Barthold who died in 1930 (work originally a doctoral thesis from 1900
5. Hungary in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Times, by Vambery, who argued Hungarian was a Turkic language. The description of this book on Google says: "This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original." Hardly argues for current scholarly relevance of the man who lost the Turkic-Ugric War.
6. Arminius Vambery: His Life and Adventures. This is his autobiography. Why are you citing this?
7. Boukhara, récit (Heureux Qui Com). This appears to be an edition of a medieval text. What exactly is it being cited for?
8. The Handbook on Medieval Studies makes no mention of any etymology of Turkmen

So basically none of the sources you're citing show that current scholars engage with any of these etymologies.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked for the books that were reprinted for "zillions of times", and I made a list for you. If you want modern works where current scholars cite their material from Barthold or Vambery, it's not a problem as well:

1. Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, The Origins of the Ottoman Empire, State University of New York Press, 1992. pp.74-90 (also see "Sources and references).
2. Karl Menges, The Turkic Languages and Peoples; Harrassowitz Verlag, 1968, (see "References", pp 190-206).
3. Lars Johanson, Christiane Bulut; Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects; Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006; pp 23-35.
4. Layla S. Diba, Turkmen Jewelry: Silver Ornaments from the Marshall and Marilyn R. Wolf, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), 2011 (see "Notes").
5. Prof Zeki, Velidi, Togan. Memoirs: National Existence and Cultural Struggles of Turkistan and Other Eastern Muslim Turks, 2012. pp 85-110

I can continue endlessly here, but, time is money. Simultaneously, I think that you should also provide some hard evidence supporting your belief that these sources should not be counted as reliable and are outdated. Show me at least one reputable scholarly work that disagrees with or contradicts Barthold or Vambery. I am not saying that Barthold's or Vambery's works are undoubtedly spot on, I just want to say that no matter what, these people are still very much respected among the current Turkologists and Linguists, and their view on these matters deserve their place in the relevant articles of Wikipedia. If you want to argue and post other opinion regarding the etymology or the origin of the Turkmen people, go ahead and post it, but that doesn't mean you should delete other cited statements (let different opinions stand side by side). I think this should be the logical end of this discussion.--Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't done what I asked, which is to cite a source that cites either of these scholars' etymologies of Turkmen. Where are the links showing what they're being cited for? Why should we trust the etymology given by someone who thought that Hungarian, a Uralic language, was Turkic? Doesn't that make him seem less than credible to you? The bare fact that a scholar is cited for something does not show the relevance of his etymologies.

I did some digging of my own:

1. M. Annanepesov "The Turkmens" in History of Civilizations of Central Asia ed Ahmad Hasan Dani, ‎Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, ‎Unesco - 2003, p. 127 : One may begin by reminding the reader that 'Turkmān' and 'Turkmen' are two forms of the same name, corresponding to two different etymologies. 'Turkmān', which appears frequently in Persian writing, was derived since as early as al-Birūni in the eleventh century from a supposed original Turk-mānind (lit. 'like a Turk'), the suffix being a Persian word; 'Turkmen', on the other hand, comes from Turk-men, the suffix a Turkic one for emphasis. The latter etymology has now generally been accepted. Boom: WP:RS/AC. The academic consensus is that Turk-men is an emphasized form of Turk. On Barthold we read the following in the footnote: See Kellner-Heinkele, 2000, p. 682, for the two etymologies. The change in scholarly opinion is reflected in the fact that the Encyclopaedia of Islam in its first edition had the entry on 'Turk-mān', written by V.V. Barthold; in the second edition (2000) the entry is entitled 'Turkmen'. So there you have it, Barthold, lo and behold, is considered to have been wrong. What a surprise, considering he's been dead for 90 years.
2. Larry Clark, Turkmen Reference Grammar, 2000 p. 3-4 : The exact origin of the word Türkman has not been resolved. Some early scholars, beguiled by the French spelling "Turcoman," made the unacceptable suggestion that this word represented a compound of the ethnonyms Turk and Coman (that is, Kuman, a group of Kipchak Turks in eastern Europe). Other scholars feel that the formation Türk+man must mean 'resembling Turks,' and refer to the folk etymology suggested by contemporaries of the Oguz-Turkmen, including the Arab lexicographer Mahmud al-Kashgari who, in the 11th century, derived the word from Turk mānand, which means in Persian "These look like Turks." However, the most likely explanation of the word is that it is derived from the ethnonym Türk plus an intensifying element +man, which could mean 'most Turkish of the Turks' or 'pure-blooded Turks.' Again, he cites Barthold as holding the etymology that is less likely.

These are modern sources and they both agree in that the most likely/most widely accepted etymology is something like "very Turk" "most Turk", etc. They don't mention any of Vambery's crazy ideas, but they do mention at least one completely discredited theory (Turcoman=Turk-Cuman) as well as the theory held by Barthold etc., but as no longer the currently accepted one. These are the sorts of sources (and there are undoubtedly more) that we need to use to write the etymology section, not things written nearly a hundred years ago. We need to give appropriate wp:WEIGHT to the proposals, not just list them all. Some proposals, such as Turkophile Vambery's, are so old and based on such misconceptions (like that Hungarian is a Turkic language!) that they shouldn't be included at all.

I'll note some of my initial assumptions appear to have been incorrect, but that doesn't change the fact that the section currently gives weight to old, crackpot ideas and only serves to confuse the reader. In particular, the "Sogdian" etymology given first is not mentioned in either of the works above and is cited to things that are, quite suspiciously, not available online. Given that there's been a concerted attempt to connect the Turkmen to various Iranian peoples, this is probably BS and needs to be removed. The rest of the section is in need of clean-up based on modern sources as well, of course.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

From this revision:

• The earliest reference to the term "Turkmen" appears in the Chinese literature as a country name.[27] Chinese encyclopedia T’ung-tién (8th century A.D) contains information where the country of Su-i or Su-de[28][29] (probably Sogd or Sogdia), which had commercial and political relations with China in the 5th century A.D., is also called T’ö-kü-Möng[30] (Turkmen country).[31]

Current revision:

• Chinese encyclopedia Tongdian (8th century A.D) mentions that Sogdia (粟弋 Sùyì or 粟特 Sùtè) had commercial and political relations with China in the 5th century A.D. and was also called 特拘梦 Tèjūmèng. Tejumeng 特拘梦 (< MC *dək̚-kɨo-mɨuŋH) might be a transliteration of the country name Türkmen.

The original text copy-pasted from a student’s thesis (PDF link). It's not Vasily Bartold's work and it's not WP:RS. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich and Erminwin: FYI --Wario-Man (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The article will need to be checked over carefully for similar lapses. I just removed a source (supposedly by Yury Zuev, who may be a problematic source to begin with) that does not appear in WorldCat and has a false ISBN number, meaning it probably doesn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man and Ermenrich:: I've read the thesis. The student cited Golden (1992) & Peter Benjamin Golden is WP:RS. This is the relevant passage from Golden's 1992 book "An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples" (p. 212-213): "A Sogdian letter of the 8th century mentions trwkkm’n which, if it is not trkwm’n ("translator") may be the earliest reference to this ethnonym [Türkmen]. The Chinese historical work, T'ung-tien [pinyin Tongdian] (ca.801) mentions the T'ê-chü-meng [pintyin Tejumeng] in Su-tê [Sute] (Sogdia) which has also been viewed as a rendering of this name. [136]" Golden cited source [136] as "Livšic, Sogdijskie dokumenty, vyp. II, p. 177n.4; Bartol'd, Oeerk ist. Trkmn, SoCinenija, II/1, pp. 550-551." This is the relevant passage from Tongdian 193 "粟弋，後魏通焉。在蔥嶺西，大國。一名粟特，一名特拘夢。" My translation: "Suyi, Latter Wei [knew it] thoroughly. [It is] a large country to the west of Onion Ridge. Another name is Sute, another name is Tejumeng." Is Golden's receptiveness (tho' long ago) to the claim about possible earlier references to Türkmen enough to reinstate the claim (though very speculative)? Erminwin (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Erminwin:, I think Golden is a good source, 1992 is not too ancient. Does he say anything about the etymology of the name, you’ll see in the section above this that we’re debating whether Vambery or Barthold should be cited as though their ideas are current scholarship on the name.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: This is what Golden said about etymology (p. 213-3) " Contemporary popular etymologies (e.g. al-Birûnî) attempted to connect this ethnonym with Turk + Iran. mânand "like, resembling." Modem scholarship, however, views it as deriving from Türk + Turk. -men (a suffix of strengthening).¹³⁷" "137. For a discussion of these early citations see Agadžanov, Očerki, pp. 80-83 who views them as a mestizo, Islamicized, largely Oguz grouping in Western Semireč'e and the Middle Syr Darya, and Sümer, Oğuzlar, esp. pp. 51-52. See also Chap. 11." This is what Golden wrote elsewhere about the suffix *-mÆn "Alongside all the other difficulties involved in the Qun-Quman relationship, no one has yet explained why Qun became Quman. ( qun + man "the real Quns"? > *qumman > quman ?)." (p. 276-7) Too short for me to draw any conclusion.Erminwin (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Erminwin, that basically confirms what I’ve read elsewhere. Do you have an opinion on the existence of a separate Turkoman (ethnonym) article? Something else where someone with access to sources would have a better idea than me.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Golden is a well-known Turkologist. His works are WP:RS. Feel free to use them. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Turkmen are partly Iranian or Indo-European origin. My edit was recently removed so I want to point out this is not fringe theories. On the Armenians/Georgian of me claiming they were Iranians were possibly fringe since they aren't really linguistically Iranian but the ancient population of Turkmenistan are.

1)Turkmen Status within Iranian Ethnic Identity (Cultural, Geographical, Political) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234673757.pdf.

"Genetic of Turkmens indicates a combination of Turkic and Iranian admixture that the modern Turkmen have inherited. It corresponds to the historical record of Turkmenistan, where various Iranian tribes existed in the region of Turkmenistan, prior to the migration of Turkic tribes who invaded and merged with the local Iranian population, imparted their language and created something of a hybrid Turko-Iranian culture. "

2)The source comes from that link. Also the history of Turkmenistand is inhabited by Indo-European Iranian tribes but are dissapeared today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Turkmenistan

"By 2000 BCE, Indo-European peoples had settled throughout the region. Most of the present-day Turkmenistan was occupied by BMAC-related societies and the Dahae (also known as the Daae, Dahā, Daoi and similar names) – a tribal confederation located immediately east of the Caspian. The Massagetae and Scythians were also present, immediately north of BMAC and the Dahae. " The Dahe, Massagatae, Scythians are all Iranian tribal populations that inhabited Turkmenistan

3) The mtDNA study shows " Turkmens: Genetic studies show that the Turkmens are characterized by the presence of local Iranian mtDNA lineages, similar to the eastern Iranian populations "

Vamlos (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

People of Turkmen ethnicity and people of Turkmen nationality are both referred to by the term "Turkmens". This conflation of ethnicity and nationality is also characteristic of other ethnicities and nationalities. The implications of these conflations for the primary topic of Wikipedia articles has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. This issue is also of relevance to our article on Turkmens. That leads to the question: What should be the primary topic of this article?

• People of Turkmen ethnicity
• People of Turkmen nationality (i.e. people with Turkmen citizenship)
• The term "Turkmens" itself (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT)
• There is no primary topic for the term "Turkmens"
• Something else (feel free to elaborate)

Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would say People of Turkmen ethnicity. There is nothing special to say about people of Turkmen nationality as they belong to different ethnicities which should be covered in corresponding articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• If the primary topic is the ethnicity, shouldn’t Turkoman (ethnonym) be merged here?—Ermenrich (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Turkomans are medieval "Turkmens" pre-dating modern Turkmen ethnogenese in Turkmenistan. Beshogur (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we need an article on the medieval definition of Turkmen when modern Turkmen are all descended from the group called Turkmen in the Middle Ages? Is there really that much discontinuity?—Ermenrich (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Why would we define Turkomans under Turkmens (ie. Oghuz people in Central Asia)? Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We wouldn’t. We would define it by its modern meaning and point out that it used to be used more broadly. Or is there a reason that wouldn’t work that I’m missing? We don’t have a separate article Dutch (middle ages) even though it used to refer to any Continental West Germanic language speaker, and even though Germans still call themselves by a variation of that name, for instance.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Comparing Dutch to these is not logical. Türkmens of Türkmenistan never used the term "Türkman", "Terekime". You say like we would have to merge Turkish people and Turkic peoples because both are "Türks". This is about an ethnic group in Turkmenistan and surroundings. So we are going to merge Syrian Turkmen, Lebanese Turkmen, Iraqi Turkmen or do you think these are branches of Turkmens? Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. Turkoman is the same word as Turkmen (literally: it’s just the French version). Turkic and Turkish are scholarly terms used differently today, not variations with a slightly different meaning in the Middle Ages (that is not actually based on how its spelled in English: they were both spelled identically in the Middle Ages). You’re arguing against a straw man. Plus, if "Turkmen never called themselves Turkmen" why does this article talk about how the earliest references to them are as Turkmen in the 10th century?—Ermenrich (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It´s not the French version. It is used in English as well and derived from the term Turkman, not Turkmen. Turkmens in Turkmenistan never called themselves Turkman or Terekime, I did not say Turkmen. You are confusing two things. Why does it bother do have separate page about an ethnonym used by different peoples such as Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese Turkmens or Terekeme people. They're not the same with Turkmens of Turkmenistan. Perhaps @Visioncurve: has something to say as creator of the article. @Ermenrich: We don’t have a separate article Dutch (middle ages) even though it used to refer to any Continental West Germanic language speaker, and even though Germans still call themselves by a variation of that name, for instance. We have a separate article of Franks and French people using the same name. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Look at the etymology section of either article: Turkman and Turkmen are the same name: In the early 21st century, this ethnonym is still used by the Turkmens of Central Asia—^[1][2]the main population of Turkmenistan—Iran, Afghanistan and Russia, as well as Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens, the other descendants of the Oghuz Turks. "Turkoman", "Turkmen", "Turkman" and "Torkaman" were—and continue to be—used interchangeably.^[3][4] Furthermore, I can give you specific quotes that "Turkoman" is just the French version of Turkmen, regardless of whether it is used in English, see here Some early scholars, beguiled by the French spelling "Turcoman"....

Also, the case of the French and Franks is not comparable: the Franks were a Germanic tribe, whereas the French are a romance people. Turkmen have always spoken an Oghuz Turkish language with an Oghuz Turkish ethnicity.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: French language has a lot of German vocabulary as well. And Frankish people had a contribution to modern French ethnogenese. It's a similar comparison regardless the language. It's more logical to merge that article with Oghuz Turks instead of Turkmens, which are a modern nation in Central Asia. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, you may be right about that, it's not a bad suggestion. I just thought that there being two articles with one on a now obsolete usage of the word to mean Oghuz was worth bringing up if we're discussing the primary topic of this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Bayram A (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Turkmens were tradtionally called Turkoman in Western sources, this probably originates from Anna Komnene, a Byzantine princess and author of 11th-12th centuries. If we take some sources of 19th century and even 20th century, the Turkmens are still called Turkoman (Turcoman):

- Article "The Turcomans Between the Caspian and Merv" by Ármin Vámbéry published by Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1880 ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/2841925)

- Book "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk. One of the chapters which talks about Turkmens of present-day Turkmenistan is called "The Last Stand of the Turkomans"

Here is the definition of Turkoman from Merriam Webster:

Turkoman noun Tur·ko·man | \ ˈtər-kə-mən \ variants: or Turcoman plural Turkomans or Turcomans Definition of Turkoman - : TURKMEN SENSE 1 – Turk·men | \ ˈtərk-mən \ plural Turkmen or Turkmens Definition of Turkmen 1a: a member of a group of Islamized Turkic-speaking pastoral tribes who beginning in the eleventh century expanded from Central Asia into Persia, the Caucasus, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia b: a member of a people descended from elements of these tribes who now form a majority of the population in Turkmenistan and a minority in adjacent countries 2: the Turkic language of the contemporary Turkmen people

History and Etymology for Turkoman: Medieval Latin Turcomannus, from Persian Turkmān, from turkmān resembling a Turk, from Turk

Bayram A (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkmens are NOT generally known as "Turkmen Turks", we are known only as Turkmens and historically were called Oghuz Turkmen. The article cites only Turkish sources which call Turkmen people as "Turkmen Turks", the article should either clearly say "also known in Turkey as Turkmen Turks" or not mention "Turkmen Turks" at all as it is relevant only to Turkey and this is Wikipedia's English language section.

Here is the definition of Britannica about the name of the Turkmens: "Turkmen (people). Alternative Titles: Turcoman, Turkmeny, Turkoman." - Turkmen (people)

Here is what the Big Russian Encyclopedia says about the name of the Turkmens: "ТУРКМЕ́НЫ (тур­ко­ма­ны; са­мо­на­зва­ние – турк­мен, мн. ч. турк­мен­лер; араб., перс. те­ре­ке­ме, ус­тар. рус. – трух­ме­ны, трух­мен­цы, трух­мя­не) - TURKMEN (Turkomans; self-name - Turkmen, plural Turkmenler; Arabic, Persian Terekeme, obsolete Russian - Trukhmeny, Trukhmentsy, Trukhmyane). - Туркмены

Bayram A (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TurkmenistanMaryMosque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The term Turkmen itself already contains the word "Turk". https://tk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Türkmenler Google it, these are sources in Turkish by modern Turkish authors. V.N.Ali (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
See also here: "Talk:Turkmens#Turkmen Turks?". Silent means consent? V.N.Ali (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There should be serious Turkmen sources for such a self-name of ethnic Turkmens, and for the English name there should be reliable sources such as a review article in encyclopedias, scientific works. If nothing appears in the article on this topic during the current week, then I will hide both Turkmen and English with appropriate clarifications and I consider the sources of another related language to the self-names of Turkmens in Turkmen to be inappropriate. V.N.Ali (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Visioncurve: what do you think? Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No per WP:OR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, we are waiting for your point of view on this issue here. V.N.Ali (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to demonstrate how those sources aren't reliable in this context. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain your last edit in the article. And you don't have to threaten to go to the admins every time. This is not a prison, but an effort to create a reliable encyclopedic article. Look at my edits from January 30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkmens&diff=1068836995&oldid=1068833344) and February 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkmens&diff=1069512996&oldid=1068854869), what do you have to say to this? For example, the Turkish newspaper writes "Kazak Türkleri", but the Kazakhs never say so. "Kazakhs" itself is a full-fledged ethnonym and designation of an ethnic group. V.N.Ali (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that about the Kazakhs? Do you have something to back that? Anyways, I agree that the Türkiye gazetesi is not appropiate. That leaves 2 sources, what about those? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There are Kazakh acquaintances, sometimes I look through Kazakh news and literature and do not meet such things about myself from Kazakhs. Residents of Kazakhstan - Kazakhstani, ethnicity - Kazakhs. Those who claim that Kazakhs or Central Asian Turkmens use such terms as "Kazak türkleri" and "Türkmen türkleri" about themselves and in their language should confirm this with credible, strong scientific sources. I'm sure many Central Asian Turkmens would be very surprised to hear such a phrase about themselves. Can anyone provide a fragment of that quote from these two sources, which says that the Central Asian Turkmen also call themselves "Türkmen türkleri"? I can not find it... I think the sources should point to the endonym. Or it should be a scientific source in the Turkmen language that would use the term "Türkmen türkleri". Otherwise, what does it do in the introduction (Turkmen: Türkmen türkleri, توركمن تورکلری) if it is not a Turkmen term? This must be removed along with sources that do not confirm this. V.N.Ali (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article also mentions that name "Türkmen Türkleri" is said in the Turkmen language. This is not true, as in Turkmenistan we never say "Türkmen Türkleri", we just say "Türkmen" (in singular form) or "Türkmenler" (in plural form). PLus, there no reliable sources are provided in support of this statement. This should be corrected Bayram A (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• کچێکی وڵاتی تورکمانستان بەجلی نەتەوەیی وڵاتەی لە ئەشق ئابادی پایتەخی وڵات.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)