Talk:Germiyanids

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Germiyan → Germiyanids – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

Germiyan is the name of a tribe. We need the name of dynasty, principality or emirate.

• "beylik of Germiyan" -Llc 7
• "Germiyan Principality" -Llc 10
• "Principality or Germiyan" -Llc 0
• "Germiyan Emirate" -Llc 8
• "Emirate of Germiyan" -Llc (minimum) 13
• "Germiyan dynasty" -Llc (minimum) 11, includes Chiniese :)
• Germiyanoğulları -Llc 65 (minimum) 25, but includes many sources written in Turkish language
  • Anatolia Germiyanoğulları -Llc 5
• "Germiyanid beylik" -Llc 3
• Germiyanids -Llc 169 (minimum) 54
  • Anatolia + Germiyanids -Llc 125 (minimum) 42

-- Takabeg (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source ???

What is this? --Kmoksy (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Read sources before you revert!--Gomada (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Kurdish propaganda! --Kmoksy (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish Propaganda

There is no historical source that the dynasty of the Germiyan principality was Kurdish.

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?

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?

The page needs to be rearranged. Burtigin (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies between the sources cited and what is written.

Burtigin (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no historical source that the dynasty of the Germiyan principality was Kurdish.

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?

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) 18:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Origin of Germiyanid, Mateos from Urfa, Malatya

According to his statement that a region was named “Germiyan”
It is said that it dates back to Malatya and thus to the Danishmenids.
has been removed.  The period when Mateos lived, the gates of Anatolia
Coinciding with the period when it first opened to Turks, Danishmen
increases the importance of its connections with central Malatya.
It is believed that the Germiyans were from the Afshar tribe of the Oghuzes.
In the face of such views, Z. V. Togan, in Kütahya, "aşiret-i Harezm" 
Kangli-Kipchak the service of the people of Horezm due to his record "harezm"
He claimed that they might be from the chak group."

Page 8

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/317221&ved=2ahUKEwjG7pD-4PzyAhXK_7sIHSEUC-EQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2lUmMPBf6dvkrzQ7i9ocjj

that is, there is no solid source that the Germiyan dynasty was a Kurdo-Turkic half-breed On the contrary, most sources of the period state that the Germiyan dynasty was Kipchak-Kangli Turkic tribes who had to come to Anatolia from Khwarezm due to the Mongol invasion and attacks.

Also, there is no source that indicates that the Germiyan principality and dynasty spoke Kurdish or were described as Kurdish, anyway, the language they spoke was old Anatolian Turkish.

In the light of this information, I demand that the information that the dynasty and the principality are Turkish-Kurdish (moreover, no historical information was consulted in the cited sources, personal inferences and predictions were put forward), it does not have definite and solid evidence and should be regulated. Burtigin (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, where is a source that does not contain any guesses that the Germiyan dynasty is an Oghuz-Turkmen tribe called Avşar/Afşar, while the other, as I wrote, is a Kangli-Kipchak from Harezm

Where is a source that doesn't speculate that dynasties origin is a Kurdish-Turkish hybrid?

Burtigin (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Cemal Kafadar, A Rome of One's Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum, "Muqarnas", volume 24, Brill, 2007, page 22;

• "Ibn Battuta's reference to Yezid as the ancestor of the Sons of Germiyan..[..]..has thus led some modern scholars to deem the Germiyanids as Kurds and a occasioned rebuttal by a Turkish historian: see Mustafa Cetin Varlik.[..]...The actual circumstance may indeed have been so complex as not to allow for a designation of some of those tribal confederations with a straightforward ethnic marker comfortably recognized by modern readers."

With that being said, I think we should move any and all mention of ethnicity to the body of the article(Origin section) and leave ethnicity out of the lead. From there we can add whatever ethnicity is mentioned with its cooresponding reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Besides, when he says Yazid, the person Ibn-i Batuta is talking about is the 1st Yazid, the Umayyad caliph.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_I

Where did the allegations that there are Yazidi Kurds come from? Burtigin (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge source used to reference Turko-Kurd dynasty is a simple definition and nothing else. Hardly something that should be pushed into the lead of the article. But with the quote I have posted, it is clear that we should leave the Germiyanids ethnicity out of the lead of the article and simply place any ethnic concerns in the Origin section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The source about the so-called "Kurdish" origin, which Cambridge University refers to as a reference, is based on Ibn Batuta's travel book.

I quote it exactly from Ibn Battuta

"The ruler of Kulhisar is Muhammed Çelebi. Çelebi means "sayyidi" = sir in Anatolian language. This man is the brother of Abu Ishaq, the ruler of Ekridur. He wasn't there when we landed in the city. We stayed for a few days, and he came back during this time, he gave us a lot of treats. The road saw our need, gave us mounts.

We left there via Karaağaç.  In the Black Turkic language, “esved” means black;  tree means “haşeb” = wood.  This is a green area.  It is one of the areas where Turkmen settled.  Since the Cermiyan = Germiyan tribes were cutting the way in this plain, the sultan added warriors to our side to ensure that we could reach Ladik safely.  Cermiyanoğulları, Yazid b.  Rumors that they are descended from Muawiya are widespread!  Kütahya belongs to them.  May Allah protect us from their evil."

Source: https: //www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.academia.edu/28696115/%25C4%25B0BN-%25C4%25B0_BATUTA_SEYAHATNAMES%25C4%25B0_VE_EVL%25C4%25B0YA_%25C3%2587ELEB%25C4%25B0_SEYAHATNAMES%25C4%25B0N%25C4%25B0N_%25C4%25B0STANBUL_B%25C3%2596L%25C3%259CM%25C3%259CNE_G%25C3%2596RE_AH%25C4%25B0LER_VE_AH%25C4%25B0L%25C4%25B0K&ved=2ahUKEwiMjJWE9_7yAhVPgP0HHVwwC8EQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2YcNtBPfff9oiCNdsnQfLN

So, as you can see from the excerpt, the person Batuta is talking about is not the Yazidi Kurds.

on the contrary, he refers to the Muslim Umayyad caliph Yazid bin Muawiya.

But Ibn Battuta himself wrote that this was also a "rumor" in the environment.

Second

https: //www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/108941&ved=2ahUKEwic48ff-P7yAhXJhv0HHc2HBMgQFnoECDgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0_HzmXKEGoE2DS_HTVnoje

Ibn-i Bibi, who wrote the work "Selçukname" in this source, used the name "Etrak-ı Germiyan" or "Tirkan-ı Germiyan" for the Germiyan clan.

I guess there is no need to explain that Etrak means Turk in Arabic.

Likewise, "Tirkan" in Persian of the period means Turkmen.

that is, the Seljukname does not refer to this Germiyan tribal confederation or clan as Kurdish

Here, I want you to indicate that the source of Cambridge is not certain and it is a weak possibility on the page, and add what is written in the Seljukname work I mentioned, and add the fact that the person Ibn-i Batuta is talking about is Yazid, the Umayyad caliph.

Burtigin (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, we can not take what one source states then add what another source states to create a conclusion, that is synthesis. I say we take "Turko-Kurdish" and the Cambridge source and place both in the Origin section, as far as I can find it is the only source for "Turko-Kurdish". Do you agree? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

yes it seems appropriate

As you said, an origin section should be opened. Batuta's records that they came from Yazid bin Muawiya, They are of Oghuz-Turkmen Afshar origin, I would also like to add the claims that Velidi Togan and the intelligent Velidi Togan are from the Kangly-Kipchak Turks from Khorezm.

what I'm talking about is not synthesis, different conclusions reached by many different researchers.

as a result, writing only one and not writing the others prevents access to the correct information.

Also, I think it would be better if you delete the "Turkish-Kurdish" dynasty part in the title and write "feudal dynasty" and add this information along with the sources I gave to the origin section.

Can I still contact you when I find other research and articles? Burtigin (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

TigerLionLeopard (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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:Germiyan dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 22:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Coeusin (talk · contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will start this review shortly. From my initial read, the article seems to already be at or at least very near to meeting the GA criteria; hopefully we can work together to reach a conclusion on a timely manner. Coeusin (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Coeusin, you may find my comments about my edits or concerns/questions below. Let me know if you have any follow-up suggestions or inquiries. Aintabli (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article, @Aintabli: I'm passing it. Coeusin (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Links, citation, copyright

• Green copyvios check Y

• Citations
  • 1c Amidst the chaos caused by the Anatolian campaign of the Mamluk Sultan Baibars of Egypt in 1277, Ala al-Din Siyavush, commonly known as Jimri, revolted against the Mongols as a pretender to the Seljuk legacy and 1d Although Jimri and Mehmed were eliminated, the Karamanids' presence in Anatolia persisted, signaling further division in the region, which was symptomatic of the downfall of the Seljuks. aren't supported by the citation, unless I'm misreading things.

    For some reason, I missed these comments, but here is a quote from the source: In 1277, the Mamluk sultan Baybars launched a major invasion of Anatolia, defeating the Il-khanid forces at Albustayn. However, the aid the Mamluks had apparently been promised by the treacherousMoʿin-al-Din Solaymān never materialized, and Baybars was forced to withdraw in the face of an army lead by the Il-khan Abaqa (r. 1265-82). Meanwhile, a revolt by Moḥammad Beg (r. 1261-78), leader of the Qaramanid (Qaramān oḡullari) Turkmen of south central Anatolia, had taken Konya in the name of ʿAlāʾ-Din Siāvoš, known to some sources as Jemri, who claimed to be a son of the exiled ʿEzz-al-Din Kaykāvus II.

    Although both Jemri and Moḥammad Beg were killed, in the long run theQaramanids remained a powerful threat to Mongol control of the southern periphery of Anatolia where they founded their own principality

    The fragmentation of Anatolia, demonstrated by the continued lingering existence of the Daneshmandid territories as a political unit, increased in the 14th century with the proliferation of principalities so that the Saljuq sultanate cannot be simply considered a predecessor to the Ottomans who brought all of Anatolia under their rule.

  • Mélikoff 1965 needs page numbers.

    I accessed the online version, though. Aintabli (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Philippides 1990 doesn't support 8. Page number is probably wrong.

    Yes, it should have been page 6. I didn't add this reference, so the page number may have been set incorrectly. Or when I was formatting the references, I may have introduced a typo. I fixed it now. Aintabli (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Sourcing: I read all the mentioned pages of the English sources. The article is a fair representation of them.

Prose/structure

• In the lead:
  • This sentence doesn't work: Germiyan first appeared in 1239 near Malatya tasked with suppressing the Babai revolt.

    Does changing it to first appeared in historical records in 1239 work?

  • The tribe relocated to western Anatolia with the encroaching Mongol invasion. from where?

    From near Malatya, which is the last place mentioned before that sentence. Though, the sources might not be explicit about it.

  • Amidst the political tension caused would be better without the "the" - you have not described this political tension yet

     Done

  • I don't think rule works here: Yakub lacked male heirs and left the rule to Murad II
  • In the last paragraph, I understand why you are using the transliteration template, but the s outside of the hyperlinks is distracting. Maybe use piped links? Also, use italic=no for the ones in italic.

    Used piped links and "italic=no". Aintabli (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Background:
  • Link Yakub I the first time you mention him

     Done

  • Maybe link Babai revolt to rebellion in the first paragraph

     Done

• Yakub I (c. 1300 – c. 1340)
  • Sultan al-Germiyaniyya Chelebi al-Azam azzamallahu kadrehu could use a translation.

    Added basic translation, I removed the last 2 words, since they are actually part of a sentence meaning "May God increase his honor" or something like that, so it's not actually part of his title and is thus unneeded.

• Yakub II (1387–1429)
  • realizing that he had no other choice to survive should be rewritten.

    Thought of mentioning that it was his only choice, but I believe such commentary isn't very encyclopedic, so I have removed it.

  • Murad annexed Germiyan as requested by Yakub, which brought the history of Germiyan to an end. the history of Germiyan -> its history

     Done

• Architecture
  • Should Külliye be capitalized?

    It's part of a proper noun, I believe.

• Literature
  • defterdar could use a translation

     Done Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Structure: the article is structured in a very traditional manner, chronicling each ruler's feats. This mirrors the literature, most likely, and would need to be changed if the article was to be made into A or FA class, in my opinion.

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.

Requested move 4 October 2025

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 to Germiyanids, which was the status quo title until April. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Germiyan dynasty → Germiyan BeylikGermiyan Beylik – This page looks like about the emirate or principality not the family dynasty only A$ianeditorz (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Germiyanids gets more hits on Google Scholar than either. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, "Germiyan Beylik" doesn't even get any hits on NGrams and only 17 on Google Scholar. Aintabli (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  The current title has the same issues. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom.

Crackithm (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; if the article is to be renamed, it should indeed be to Germiyanids, which has parallels such as Karamanids and, indeed, most Anatolian beyliks. Coeusin (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2025 (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.