# Talk:Yakub I of Germiyan

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)

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)