This subject is featured in the Outline of Turkmenistan, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkmenistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkmenistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Turkmenistan is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Turkmenistan at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Since the new constitution does allow for multi party politics isn't it inaccurate to list the country as a single party state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
...or however you spell his name. I just looked on the commons and nobody has a non-copyvio pic of him--can we try and get one? He's becoming a rather important figure...K. Lásztocska 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any merit to THIS MAP showing valid subdivisions below the provinces of Turkmenistan? Rarelibra 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC). I think it would be very useful to add this to the article on Districts of Turkmenistan, although you should note that these second-level sub-divisions are now called etraplar instead of the Russian word raions. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention of the indus civilization which also had colonies in Turkmenistan.-Vmrgrsergr 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the CIA Factbook - Turkmenistan is our largest export partner - 22% of US manufactured goods(at least for one year). I suspect oil related. There economy should pickup as soon as we can clear a road/pipeline to the fields - just over the mountain from Afghanistan and Iran - keep hearing those names.220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Never heard it refered to as this. Turkmenistan is the only name I've heard used and anyone who can find it on a map knows it is one of the 'stans' in that region. If Turkmenia is used in some back water of the USA or somewhere then provide a source to show it.--Xaniatalk 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
>> Turkmenistan is referred to as Turkmenia by Turkmens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In USSR we all called it Turkmenia. In Russia we actually still can't get used to the new name Turkmenistan. Blondie was born here. Demo people have recently become enraged and taken over the country because the local government was trying to teach them how to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the usage of Czechia. Uzbekia, Kazakhia and Kirghizia are sparsely used according to Google (although Tajikia isn't), so Turkmenia isn't too surprising. Language-wise, "ia" probably makes more sense to us English speakers (e.g. Germania) than "-stan." --Mrdie (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The photo supposed to be the Turkmen Majlis is in fact the American White House. Guess it's a little joke but should be changed back quickly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The sentence bottom of the Ertuğrul Gazi Mosque
Ertuğrul Gazi is not the founder of the Ottoman Empire. Osman Gazi is the founder, but the sentence states that both of them are founders of the Ottoman Empire. I am changing it into just Osman Gazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is stated in the article: "Islam came to the Turkmen primarily through missionary activities. Missionaries were holy men and they often were adopted as patriarchs of particular clans or tribal groups, thereby becoming their "founders." Reformulation of communal identity around such figures accounts for one of the highly localized developments of Islamic practice in Turkmenistan."
Is there any reference on this? What are the founders? and who are they? Asd1815 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The total population given in the Infobox is 5.1 million (in 2009). This cannot be right because in the Turkmenistan#Administrative divisions page, the provincial subdivision populations are as follows (albeit 2005 figures):
Ashgabat (city) 939700
Total was 6550000 (6.55 million) in 2005. Could Turkmenistan have lost 1.4 million people in 4 years? Was Ashgabat or Ahal excluded from the total? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the CIA Factbook, the population of the state is 5,054,828 (July 2012 est.). Alex2006 (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Is that accurate? That's still 1.5 million less than the province totals in 2005. best, 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a question of placing "the government of Turkmenistan ... on a lower footing". But unless I have misread the "Politics" section of this article, the Cabinet of Ministers (the political body, not the article) has only been in existence for a relatively short time, and there is simply far less to say about it than there is about Cabinet of Ministers (Soviet Union). So the situations are not really comparable. DES(talk) 21:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the Soviet Union Cabinet article? It has less information than this one. The whole government of Turkmenistan has been in existence for a relatively short time. So what? Do you really think five years in an entire nation's history is not sufficient to create an article's worth of information? I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with this; either way, whether it's merged or not, it didn't need to be in the AFC backlog. This is exactly the kind of bureaucratic navel-gazing I was talking about in the draft namespace discussion. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number 21:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - While I can understand why you might feel that it ought to be merged, DES, I would suggest that you're not taking into account the high uptake on developing articles surrounding nation-states which were under-represented in Wikipedia for a long time. I've seen a substantial increment in the content of such articles within the past year alone, and an ever increasing need to split sections off as they're developed due to their reaching maximum size. While the proposed merging of the specifics of governance may be a desirable option for historically defunct states, all I can envisage here is a merge followed by further development, then its being tagged for being 'Very long|rps=75' within a few months. Considering that this article is, by definition, a generalised account of Turkmenistan's history, economics, geography, religion/s, ethnicity/ies, et al, specialised sections merit being developed as specialised articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Cabinet of Ministers (Turkmenistan) is part of the National cabinets of Asia series of articles, no? The basic premise seems fine to me: each country's national cabinet is the subject of a reliably-sourced article w/ clear citation style, complying w/ MOS-guidelines, etc. However, and I'll perhaps tag Cabinet of Ministers (Turkmenistan) to reflect this - it's currently showing only one source + citation for the entire article. How can that be ok? JDanek007Talk 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.