Talk:Turkmens

Please

Please do not replace the article with unwikified dumps of text grabbed from elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thanks. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turk-men???

The history of Iraqi Turkmens are not related with Ottoman Empire. They are descendants of Seljuks and Ilkhanates not the Ottomans. The given meaning of Turkmen as "Türk-men" (I am a Türk) is totally absurd. The way to say "I am a Turk" in Turkmen is "Men Türkem", "Men Türküm". In any of the Turkic languages from Siberian Yakut to Balkan Turkish the verb is always at the end of the sentence. The execptions that I know are Gagauz (Moldova) and Karaim (Lithuania).

English dictionaries say the word is from Persian turkmān, "like a Turk". I am going to work on this article this weekend. --Cam 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruhnama say the word is from turk-iman: türk means core, iman means light. Therefore, TÜRK İMAN, namely Türkmen means “made from light, whose essence is light.” The Türkmen name came to this world in this way.

http://ruhnama.info/ruhnama-en/kitap-htm/s10.htm --Ga1taman 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd paragraph

Saparmyrat Niyazov

Since October 22, 1993 Saparmyrat Niyazov has used the title Turkmenbashi (Türkmenbaşy), meaning "Leader of all Ethnic Turkmen". In his state Turkmenistan, this is probably largely true. It should be noted, however, that President Niyazov has not to date demonstrated any desire to expand his political suzerainty beyond the borders of Turkmenistan.

Does the above paragraph really belong in this article? Seems inappropriate. SouthernComfort 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I say delete it. :) --Khoikhoi 04:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "Turkoman" is combination of two words "Turk" and "Koman". Turk means strong and Koman might be corruption of "Cuman". The word "Cuman" might be corruption of word "Chemon" which means Cem, Kem, Kim, Chem, Khem peoples living around the globe. For example Kembojah, Khemr, Kama, Kamio, Kamen, Komnenos, Champas, Chamorro etc etc living as Arabs, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Shamans, Christians, Pagans and Muslims in almost all continents of the world. I beleive this word Kem/Cem/Chem takes its name from Biblical "Shem"(son of bibilical and Quranic Noah) being ancestor of Arabs and Hebrews(the most ancient peoples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.190.49 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

people or peoples?

Do the Turkmen of central Asia and the Turkmen of Iraq really consider themselves to be part of a single ethnic group? Or do they consider themselves separate groups (admittedly under the larger umbrella of Turkic peoples) with the same name? --Jfruh 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

More radically, shouldn't we split this article? I've controlled ethnologue and it considers their language only adialect of South Azerbaijani, linking the Iraqi Turkmens to the Azeris and not to the Central Asian Turkmens. Also I doubt the two groups have any cultural similarities, also considering that many Iraqi Turkmens are shia, while all the Central Asian Turkmens are Sunni. The only common link is that they are both Turkish people, but this can be said of many. Aldux 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(I'm an outsider editing adding a comment.) The one who added the article above, doesn't have any clue what he/she is talking about. He/she doesn't seem to know the difference between Turkish and Turkic. Turkmens and Turcomans of Iraq are NOT Turks. They are TURKIC peoples. Turks are relatively a young nation, on the other hand the history of Turkmens go back thousands of years. We dug finely worked ivory up in Turkmenistan hand made about 3500 year ago. Turkmens can't possible be Truks.

You have no ıdea eıther. they're all Turks. Turkıc ıs a synonym! But yes, Iraqi Turkmen ıs dıstınct. Half of them ıs sunni though.--Bunifa88 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved info. on Iraqi Turkmen to Iraqi Turkmen

Just so everyone knows, I didn't just blank out the section. Tombseye 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dating

What does AH mean, as in 349 AH? What does it translate to in western time-keeping? What calendaring system is it, Islamic or Baha'i or Saka? 24.186.214.2 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AH is After-Hegira, Muslim time reckoning, when Muhammed fled Mecca for Medina, 622 AD. Chris 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Looking at Turkomen after the merge proposal, I thought they seemed like two different batches of people similarly named. Can anyone verify? They could be the same. Chris 07:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

support merge, I checked, same batch of folks. Chris 07:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

support merge, --Ga1taman 13:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 21:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What is so bad about this picture?

What is so bad about this picture that it must need be removed from the article, where it had been happily sitting since April 2005?  --Lambiam 17:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly dont see see anything wrong it. I'm going to restore it since there appear to have been no responses to Lambiam's comment. Khoikhoi 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see anything wrong with the picture. But there is a rather technical problem. It is claimed in the legent that the photo had been taken during 1905-1915. With such bright colors and correct hues it is simply impossible. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They had color photos back then you know and Russia was the place. This is an authentic color photo from the period, which is why it is still here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.241.102 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

turkmen baloch

I am a baloch of Iran.I have just heard about the turkmen baloch.Can any one tell where do they exist?and do they speak russian>Did any one(local) see them in Turkmenistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.85 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Türkmen Baloch refers to the citizens of Türkmenistan who are of Baloch ancestry, they are mainly found in the Merv Oasis of Türkmenistan.(ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC))

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified "Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

john L.Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has reapeated this text in many articles. I wrote an answer to the one here,here andhere. I think you need to remove the whole of posts by this one . He also has posted two other blocks of text to many wiki articles. He supports the ethnocentric ideas of persians. Amir.azeri (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Major Ethnic Groups of Iran ( picture is wrong ! )

I wanted to mention to the picture about Major Ethnic Groups of Iran, Turkmens are in a vast area in iran, also azeries and qashqai, the government of iran wants to show that Turkic people in iran are so less, persian and kurds are more ! --Snake co1 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkmen People representatives in the infobox

Please take a look at the portraits in the top right corner of "Azerbaijani people" (or any other good article about an ethnicity). It shows a representative selection of ethnic faces, not just the current president. Yceren Loq (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Turkmen0012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Turkmen0012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yörük = Hyrcanae?

The article claims that the Turkish term "Yörük" used for Turkish nomadic or semi-nomadic groups in Anatolia and Balkans has phonetic variations Iirk, Iyierk, Hiirk, Hirkan, Hircanae, Hyrkan and Hyrcanae. This information is quoted from a Russian publication, which is unaccessible online and the name Hyrcania was, furthermore, the ancient name of a region between current Iran and Turkmenistan, whereas the etymology of the word "Yörük" is generally thought to be derived from the Turkish verb "yürümek" (to walk). http://books.google.cz/books?id=q_189OeDwSMC&pg=PA859&lpg=PA859&dq=Yörük Is there any further evidence for the existence of those phonetic variations mentioned in the article? Ayazid (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Siktirgitir

Instead of calling other editors ignorant and edit warring, Siktirgitir should bring sources to support his opinions. The referenced information he is changing does not state parthian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Kansas Bear is correct on all points. Edward321 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

concering parthian

I seems as I told before on your site that you are little informed, if you read barthold turkestan down to mongol invasion, rene grousse, steppe empires, cambrigde history of iran volume 3, The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1 ,The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 2 ,

also in swedish, bra böckers världs historia, which means good books world history its like a encylopedia of the world history of mankind,

also the bonniers världs historia del 3, bonniers world history part 3 the parthians and sassanid era in iran, in swedish,

I have tones of references, its just some of I have read, I have gumaliev, wilhem radloff, thomsen, otto von maenschlefen,

I dont remember their books,

ce bosworth, bosworth american historian or english , unesco historical background of central asia, part 2 or three I dont clear remember,

peter golden, different books, faruk sumer , turkmenler oghuzlar book, the problem is that I dont remember all the books entitlements,

Peter golden is a major in iran and turkic and middle eastern history,

I have read minorsky, but he is not a good source, you feel more stupid than smart when you come out reading him,

ariminus vambery the jewish hungary , traveles thruth central asia or something the book was called,

I got reference from cambrigde history of iran volume 7 from nadir shah to the islamic republic, a statistics showing the rapid developent of irans economy from irans central bank and IMF , internationl monetary fund,

I have lots of lots of more the the bra böckers enclyocpedia , the whole bonniers, world history encholpedia, whole cambrigde of iran volumes , thought I dont remember everything, It was some years ago, the uzbek historian baya something, he died some years ago, and tatar valid tokan or something dont remember his name either, I have many many more source so please dont say I dont have any source, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siktirgitir (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you are so informed, you should know that simply stating title of books and names of historians is not proof of anything. I see no page numbers with these book titles nor quotes from these books. Therefore, you have presented nothing that supports your opinion. Continued remarks directed at other editors will be reported and can result in you being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The historian and books I mentioned is actuall books I have read, as I said on your page I dont know how to add source, and further notice, I havent seen at wikipedia, state pages of books, but if you want that , Ill do it to , you only make wikipedia a worse tool of knowlegde by removing , you are not adding any information, besides as I said you are little informed, since you didnt even know were the parthians lived, to me as a historian its a big error, anyhow, good luck by keeping wikipeida free from false information, and spreading false knowlegde, you are a hero to mankind, I admire your courage, If wikipedia had more talented like you than we would need no books, keep it up, --Siktirgitir (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

vandalism by kansans bear edward321 and vsmith

the tukmen ethnoloue report clearly reports as I have pointed out , they havent even checked it, its so stupid and ignorant, please can someone help me to this ignorant gentleman to see the true , they havent even checked the source and denies the source , how can you by so blind, please help other users, I dont have any other reverts since they have warned me because I said edward321 was deranged because he didnt read the source , I still hold to my opinion that the guy isnt fully aware of the source and there for not fully functional, as to vsmith and kansans bear seems to take sides and dont see the matter from an objective side, I have read the ethnologue report before and just clicked at the link and it confired what I edited , how can people be so blind, please someone with moral can they help me edit turkmen people article,--Siktirgitir (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

Sources on Turkmens

Public domain text on Turkmens

The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.

As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman. (p. 71)

The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries. The fact we have seen, that the Turkomans marry Persian women, when they take them as prisoners. The Turkoman women are, like the men, tall, and when young, well-shaped; their faces are rounder than those of the men; the cheek-bones less prominent; the eyes black, with fine eye-brows, and many with fair complexion; the nose is rather flat; the mouth small, with a row of regular white teeth. In a word, a great number of the younger part of the community might be reckoned as fair specimens of pretty women. (p. 73)

Bode, C.A. "The Yamud and Goklan tribes of Turkomania". Journal of the London Ethnological Society, vol. 1, 1848, pp. 60-78.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0RwAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGA7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZNs9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3U4EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Li8_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&f=false

Page 210

http://books.google.com/books?id=YMlKAAAAcAAJ&q=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&dq=The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qWNkU4DwMOe1sASY7oDYCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=0RwAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA210&dq=As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vWNkU6uDOKqssQTx1oDoCQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGA7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA212&dq=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mNkU8zHDc3MsQTnlIKoAQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Rona8Ge_OUAC&pg=PA212&dq=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mNkU8zHDc3MsQTnlIKoAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&f=false

Page 212

http://books.google.com/books?id=YMlKAAAAcAAJ&q=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&dq=The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mNkU8zHDc3MsQTnlIKoAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg

Rajmaan (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen are NOT the same as these Turkmen

articles on all Turkic-related topics in Wikipedia seem very confused, and subject to a lot of nationalist propaganda. The Turkmen of Iraq and Syria are of an entirely independent ethnicity than the Turkmen of Turkmenistan (or the Turks of Turkey for that matter!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.124.37 (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be moved to: Turkmens

There were recent moves made on the proposal:

• Azerbaijani people → Azerbaijanis
• Bahamian people → Bahamians
• Bangladeshi people → Bangladeshis
• Barbadian people → Barbadians
• Bolivian people → Bolivians
• Chilean people → Chileans
• Colombian people → Colombians

– And many similar articles which, on the same president, I would like moved - as would apply to all demonym based population describing articles in those cases those cases in which the plural form of the demonym differs from the singular form of the word.

As per: Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, List of Bahranis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Lists of Cameroonians and Canadians, ...
As per WP:UCRN as demonstrated in searches in ...

Designations that seemingly should remain as "... people" as the demonym retains the same form when indicating either singulars or plurals: Bhutanese people, British people and Chinese people,

I think that this sets a precedent which, if appropriate, can be followed. GregKaye 11:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Turkic dynastic mythological system"

This seems like a key phrase, but I don't see it defined anywhere. I don't know enough about it to know if its worthy of its own article, or a just a description here, but the lack of info hurts this article. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Article mixes up different Turkmens

This has been said over and over again on this talk page, it seems, but nobody has arranged it. The very first line says: "This article is about the Central Asian ethnic group. For other related groups, see Turkmen." But then, the introduction states: " a Turkic people located primarily in Central Asia, in the states of Turkmenistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan (...). Which is plane wrong, because the "Turkmens" in Iraq and Syria are definitely not part of the Central Asian people. They are not more related to Turkmenistan than any other Turk in Anatolia. But even in the infobox, Iraq and Syria do appear.

To clean this up is a huge work, but it should be done. Anybody around there to start doing it or to assist? Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkmen was a synonym for Oghuz Turk

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. 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)

Requested move 3 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments in opposition. Jenks24 (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Turkmens → Turkmen of Central Asia – Firstly, as requested by numerous Talk page participants, we really need to disambiguate Central Asian "Turkmen" from the "Turkmen" of the Near East, which are quite unrelated to each other, but regularly confused. The disambiguator could alternatively be added in parentheses, if that is preferred.
Secondly, in the majority of reliable sources I found, the plural form of the noun is "Turkmen", too, probably because "men" is already a plural form. This is also reflected by the article titles on Iraqi Turkmen, Syrian Turkmen and Iranian Turkmen.
Both aspects should IMHO be exhaustively discussed first, before consistently implemented not just in the article titles but also in links and mentions within the text. -- PanchoS (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Biblioworm 20:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The "men" in "Turkmen" is not the English "men", even if it appears so. "Turkmens" is indeed the plural for all these groups. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I know that the "men" in "Turkmen" isn't the English "men". Still from what I found, reliable sources tend to spell it without "s", even if used as plural noun. Please convince us, show us evidence that it is the other way around, and I'm really happy with amending my move request. All I want is a well-founded, conscious decision that is consistently applied. --PanchoS (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

See this article from The New York Times or this from The Wall Street Journal, for example. "Turkmen" is an adjective, or a singular noun. "Turkmens" is the plural noun. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Initially, I thought the same: adjective and singular noun without "s", plural noun with "s".
Until I checked Google ("Turkmen are" vs. "Turkmens are"), Google Books ("Turkmen are" vs. "Turkmens are") and other sources. Amongst others, I came upon these three, publication titles, an entry at the Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, plus news reports from BBC, Middle East Monitor, VOX, Daily Sabah etc.
All in all it seems to be around 2:1 in favor of the plural noun being "Turkmen" as well. PanchoS (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging by what I'm seeing in the searches you posted, sources that predate the recent involvement of the (Levantine) Turkmens in the international Syria saga, "Turkmens" dominated. On that basis, it may be the case that non-specialist texts describing the events that occurred have made a simple error in assumption about the use of "men". This is WP:RECENTISM, and I would suggest not following such a trend away from the norm of "Turkmens" until it is confirmed by reputable scholarly sources. Furthermore, the searches you've provided seem to deal with Levantine Turkmens, as opposed to the Central Asian variety. Even if such a change is recorded for Levantine Turkmens, I do not think that would have an effect on the Central Asian variety's name. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:RGloucester. Wikipedia typically uses (correct) plurals for peoples (e.g., Azeris, Nogais, Kipchaks). another option would be to use "people" as we do with Turkish people, i.e. Turkmen people. Note that many of the hits cited above in the Google Books searches above are for the language rather than the people (e.g., "...suffixes of standard Turkmen are presented...", "...both Turkish and Turkmen are close Turkic languages"). —  AjaxSmack  13:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A lot of falsifications on population section

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

Turkmens in Afghanistan

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)

Iraq and Syria?

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 population

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)

External links modified

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)

Current edit warring over genetics: WP:SCIRS

@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)

Why exclude mentioning the Turkmen's haplogroups Q and other Y-DNA haplogroup

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)

Stop edit warring and non-stop reverting

@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 [3] by Hunan201p is OK. Part of removed text was AsadalEditor's unsourced stuff.[4] 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.[5] 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'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hunan201p_(talk_·_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.

[6]

In Ashina tribe page, edit war for 2 weeks with user Beshogur |Leppaberry-123 [7]

In Mal'ta–Buret culture-123 page, edit war for 1-2 week with user [User:Leppaberry-123 [8]

In Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus edit war for 1-2 weeks with User:Calthinus [9]

In Ancient North Eurasian edit war with Krakkos, Chris Capocci, Bathtub Barracuda for 1-2 weeks [10]

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

Ethnogenesis

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.

References

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

Nation?

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)

Genetics on Turkmen

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. 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. Karafet et al. (2018) found Q-M25 in 50.0% (22/44) of another sample of Turkmens from Turkmenistan. Haplogroup Q have seen it's highest frequencies in the Turkmens from Karakalpakstan (mainly Yomut) at 73%.

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..

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)

References

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 [11] in 20 May 2020, that I had in response, made a talk page discussion and left a message on Beshogur talk page.[12]

I requested he make a sockpuppet investigation to prove my innocence, and the conclusion shows that I'm unrelated to any sockpuppet [13]. 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)

Third opinion

Queenplz (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Queenplz

....

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)

Kezo2005 I have deeply studied the genetics of Turkics, Indics and Iranics. Turkmens being Q in large numbers is true, you have further provided enough sources from studies too, go ahead and edit the page. --Xerxes931 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I will help Kenzo2005. I also agree with the info he is using. Kenzo2005 last link needs a little fixing and I will help him. The user is currently inactive, either lack interest due to waiting for so long or for other reasons. Queenplz (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is pushing POV

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

Picture

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)

Etymology section

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 [14]

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 [15]: 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 [16]: 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)

Source verification

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's Iranian origin

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)

Discussion on what the primary topic of this article should be

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—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. 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)

References

Turkmen Turks?

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)

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:

• TurkmenistanMaryMosque.jpg

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

"Türkmen türkleri"

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)

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:

• 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)