Talk:Yakub I of Germiyan

He is not Kurdish

he is not a Turkish-Kurdish hybrid.

there is no conclusive evidence in the pages cited as the source, based only on personal inference and guesswork

It is thought that the name Germiyan comes from the name Kirman, Another claim is that the dynasty name is thought to come from the Persian "girma" meaning hot, in other words, the dynasty was probably calling itself "Ilıcalar". (Hot Springs)

A significant Kurdish-speaking population within the principality is never mentioned, on the contrary, there is only one village in Uşak, called "Kurd".

How is it that this principality is claimed to be a Turkish-Kurdish confederation, despite the fact that the principality does not have a second language, Kurdish, and the Kurdish population fills only one village?

How is it that this principality is claimed to be a Turkish-Kurdish confederation, despite the fact that the principality does not have a second language, Kurdish, and the Kurdish population fills only one village?

What is the source of the Yezidi population? If there are so many, why are there no Yazidi temples in the regions or not mentioned in historical records?

Even though the dynasty is from the Oghuz-Turkmen Avşar tribe, how is it claimed to be Turkish-Kurdish? Burtigin (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Move requestor has provided evidence and a rationale. The opposer has chosen not to comment. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Yakup I → Yakub I of Germiyan
• Yakup II → Yakub II

– Yakub is twice as common as Yakup in WP:English language sources about Germiyan on GoogleScholar: [1][2] (I think I filtered out non-English sources, but for Yakup, Turkish language articles still show up, so it is actually more than twice.) In general, Yaqub and Yakub are more common than Yakup as first names. None of the current English-language RS found in this article use Yakup. Bosworth and Foss use Yaqub. Mélikoff uses Yakub. Even the Turkish language source (Varlık) uses Yakub. Aintabli (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yakub I of Germiyan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

1. Right now the lead is pretty disjointed. The first and last sentence are good and in the right place. Most of the rest I'm less sure about, especially During the thirteenth century, members of Germiyan family fought for the Sultan of Rum against the forces of Baba Ishak in 1239 and Jimri in 1277., which doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead at all. Can you try to rework this? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

   @Aintabli just checking that you've seen this comment asilvering (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, I've seen it. I have been relatively busy in the last few days. I will address this bit tomorrow or the day after. Aintabli (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   No rush, just wanted to make sure we weren't both waiting for each other. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   @Asilvering, I have removed the aforementioned sentence and added a bit more key pieces of information about Yakub's reign. Does it look good now? Aintabli (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

   I like having the regnal dates in there, good call! I removed the bit about the coin (I think that's of interest, but not lead-level) and did some minor prose edits. I thought I'd already done the source check here but I see I didn't check it off or query anything, so give me a moment to double-check that, and then I think we're good to promote this. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

   Ok, I did a few more prose edits for readability, but some of these were a bit interpretive, so please check this edit to see if I introduced any errors.

   I did get stuck in Following the elimination of the Hamidid and Eshrefid begs amidst Ilkhanid involvement in Anatolia in 1325, Germiyan attempted to seize the territory of Alaşehir, Denizli, and Menteshe. Moreover, Yakub's son-in-law, who was the lord of Afyonkarahisar, fled to Kütahya from the Ilkhanid officer Eretna, who was assisting the Ilkhanid governor of Anatolia, Timurtash, to enact authority over the local rulers of western Anatolia. It looks from the source that it was Timurtash who eliminated the Hamidid and Eshrefid begs, but it also looks to me like the source is saying that Timurtash wanted to seize Germiyan, Alashehir, Denizli, and Menteshe, not that Yakub wanted to seize the last three? What's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

   @Asilvering, the original version, which you have quoted above, implied that Germiyan took advantage of the downfall of the local states at the hands of the Ilkhanids and tried to seize their territory. The Turkish version of the source could be read both ways, but after checking it again, your explanation appears to be the correct one, so I have changed it accordingly. Aintabli (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

   Great! That was my last question. Thanks so much for all your work on these articles! -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Prose

1. Upon Masʿūd's end, however, Yaʿḳūb, whose realm extended until Ankara accepted vassalage under Kayḳobād III. I can't make grammatical sense of this sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

   Reworded that part. I hope it now makes sense.

2. The large paragraph under "Reign" seems to be about many different things at once. Can you break it up a bit more? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

   Divided that part into new paragraphs. Moved some of the information, so that the first three paragraphs are on the conflicts and skirmishes he was involved in. The last paragraph is about most other aspects of his reign. Aintabli (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

3. Kaykhusraw II faced a major defeat by the Mongol Empire at the Battle of Köse Dağ in 1243. With the division of the Mongol Empire, Anatolia came under the influence of the Ilkhanate, Since these sentences are right next to each other, it gives the impression that the Ilkhanate ruled Anatolia after 1243, but that's not the case. What's the relationship between this battle and the division of the Mongol Empire? Do you even have to mention it in this article if the important bit is just "Germiyan becomes part of the Ilkhanate"? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

   I have now clarified that the defeat marked the start of the sultanate's (Rum) subordinate position (vassal/tributary state) to the Mongol Empire. The latter was later divided so that the sultanate came under the Ilkhanate. It would not be accurate to summarize it as Germiyan becoming part of the Ilkhanate, because they were not a state back then. None of the sources specifically mention that as far as I remember. The Mongol expansion in Anatolia, however, is important to outline how the Seljuk rule gradually dwindled. Germiyan is one of those states that rose during the downfall of the Seljuks.

4. He possessed 40,000 cavalry and although exaggerated, was able to raise 200,000 troops in times of war. I'm not sure what is being exaggerated here? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

   That's the opinion of Varlık, which I have now specified in the article. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

5. Yakub is known to have exchanged letters with the Mamluk Sultanate in 1340. Is this encyclopedia-level important? I can see why a historian would care but I'm not sure it's meaningful in this context. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

   It's an evidence that shows he was alive in 1340. It is especially significant, considering the lack of clear records on his (later) rule.

6. Moreover, Yakub's son-in-law, who was the lord of Afyonkarahisar, fled to Kütahya from the Ilkhanid officer Eretna. When Yakub was about to engage in a battle with Eretna, the latter was called back by his master Timurtash in 1327. Unclear why these people were fighting in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

   Clarified. Aintabli (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

1. Could you expand the "background" section a bit? Right now I'm not sure this really helps anyone who needs the background. I have to admit it doesn't mean much to me, and I'm not unfamiliar with the Sultanate of Rum. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

   Added a bit more context for the history of the Sultanate of Rum. How does it look now? I might further expand it in proportion to the meat of the article (if I also end up expanding it). Aintabli (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources

1. I see that Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (2013) has a reasonably extensive bibliography - more than this article has currently. Would any of these be useful to expand this article?

   Not exactly, because most of them are primary sources. Some are secondary sources but about different states, and thus are tangential. I have added one source (Uzunçarşılı), which is also listed there, and it has some interesting new information.

2. There's no reference to Bosworth, which is in the bibliography. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

   Removed. I think it contained no new information, so that may be why I never cited it and forgot to remove it.

3. Al-ʿUmarī describes him as the most powerful Turkish emir, being the suzerain of many of his neighbors, with the Byzantine Empire paying him 100,000 pieces of gold each year. Can you clarify the source for this with a footnote? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

   It should have now been solved. Aintabli (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

1. I'm not convinced this map is based on a reliable source. Are there any others available? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Most are unsourced. And this map was one of the few that referred to a source, although not the best. I have now removed it and replaced it with a custom location map with most of the towns mentioned in the body.

1. In lieu of an image of Yakub, which I assume can't be found, are there any interesting, relevant images you could add to this article? A photograph of a location, a historic building, anything like that? -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There is supposed to be a coin specimen that survived to this date, but I have not seen its photo on the Internet as of yet. Regardless, licensing could remain a problem. There isn't anything that pertains to this specific ruler as far as I know. But I have added a photo of Kütahya, which is known as the capital of the Germiyanids. Does it look good now?

I'll leave you with those for now. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I think I have addressed your points for the moment, but let me know if you would like me to further work on any of them. Aintabli (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added some more, here and on Yakub II. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another move; can we decide on a name?

A short while ago, Growithm moved this article from "Yakub I of Germiyan" to "Yakup I Germiyan", which I noticed because it put the current GA review out of whack. I didn't notice that there have been multiple moves, previously culminating in a move request by Aintabli of Yakup to Yakub, after previous moves from Yakup to Yaqub to Yakup again. Similar moves have included Yakup II/Yakub II.

It is ultimately disruptive for this article to keep moving back and forth between names. Can this please be decided here on the talk page with a proper discussion? Thank you very much. Pinging GA reviewer asilvering, to they know what's up. While I have adjusted Yakup I Germiyan so the GA review page coordinates with the recently moved article and this talk page, I have left the GA review for Yakup/Yakub II where it was so we're aware that this is an issue that needs to be clarified. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset @Asilvering, I can say that this is disruptive at the least. Quite a while ago, I had started a move discussion, which Growithm did not care enough to respond to. They should have started a new move discussion for their recent moves. I don't intend to further spend time justifying why the previous title was appropriate. Copy-pasting from the move discussion above: Yakub is twice as common as Yakup in WP:English language sources about Germiyan on GoogleScholar: [3][4] (I think I filtered out non-English sources, but for Yakup, Turkish language articles still show up, so it is actually more than twice.) In general, Yaqub and Yakub are more common than Yakup as first names. None of the current English-language RS found in this article use Yakup. Bosworth and Foss use Yaqub. Mélikoff uses Yakub. Even the Turkish language source (Varlık) uses Yakub.

Instead, Growithm's rationale is His name was Yakup not Yakub. He was Turkish man in Turkish the name is yakup in Arabic it is yakub Aintabli (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli I'm quite persuaded by your earlier argument in your December RM. I will move it back, since I see the Yakub-->Yakup as an undiscussed, contentious move, especially while there's an ongoing GA review. I'll also ask for move protection. If there's a good argument for Yakup/Yaqub, anyone who wants to put that forward can do so with a RM. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering "Yakub I of Germiyan" was the previous title. Can you correct it? It now reads "Yakub I Germiyan". Aintabli (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli yes, my bad. Unfortunately I can't fix that one myself when it comes to the Talk pages, so I've put in a CSD request. Then I can move this and the GA review back properly. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There is also Yakub II that should be moved in line with the title of this article. Aintabli (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

nvm, I can do it myself, I somehow forgot about page swapping. Can you double-check that this is all fine now for Yakub I? I no longer trust myself, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you once again. All looks good. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Growithm has also inserted WP:OR to the article that Yakub is the Arabic form. Aintabli (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)