Talk:Göktürks

Poma mask
This article contains a reference to the Silk Road Foundation. It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has nothing to do with this talk page section.

The Silk Road Journal in question is focuses on Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by mostly Russian and Chinese researchers. There is only one editor of the journal, an American man named Daniel Waugh, who has candidly stated that the journal has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

This is pretty much the definition of a predatory publisher.

And predictably, this source contains the kind of erroneous information that one would expect from these kinds of standards. I would just like to note that this source does not even say that this mask is of Göktürk origin or from the Türkic empire. Quite the opposite, it quotes a researcher who says that it is found in association with items (namely, a cup) obtained by trade with the Türkic empire:

Yet, as we would expect from a low quality source, this is unlikely, because this source also got the dating of the mask awfully wrong. This mask is not from the 5th-6th centuries CE. Every source I have seen places the dates of the golden masks to within the 1-5th centuries CE. From The Himalayan gold masks from a Eurasian perspective, Tao Tong and Linhui Li (2016):

On the ruby-inlade Poma mask that this section concerns:

Thus this mask actually pre-dates the First Türkic Khaganate, possibly by hundreds of years, so whatever the Silk Road Journal meant by "Turkic empire", this mask has nothing to do with Göktürks, and since no source actually claims it is a Gökturk, much less a Göktürk ruler, it should not be placed here. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  15:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Göktürks → Türks – The name Göktürk is the Oghuz (Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Turkish) version for their original name Türk. The recorded names for them in each neighbouring entity was referencing to as Türk, sources such as Chinese, Sogdian, Tibetan etc. called them "Trukut", "Drugu" etc. Also in their own inscriptions, Göktürks mentioned "Kök-Türk" (Gök-Türk) only once in the third line of Kul Tigin Inscriptions' east side, other than this one and only mention, they invariably referred to themselves as "Türk". Even the first word gök was a misspelling. The popular naming "Göktürk" was either a misreading/misspelling of the Turkic word "kök" or Old Turkic "köök" (meaning as noun "sky, heaven, blue" [as opposing to "tengïr" and "tengïz", all meaning "the blue (sky or sea)"] and as adjective "heavenly, ethereal, spheric, celestial") or the Oghuz Turkic version for the word which is “gök” with the same meaning 'sky' or 'blue'. You can access all the information given above in the article itself, particularly in the etymology section of the article Göktürk. 𐰴𐰺𐰀:𐰆𐰍𐰺 · Karakylchyg 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per wp:commonname. Beshogur (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it worth considering "Old Turks", as the name from which their associated language "Old Turkic" actually derives? See Ngrams, and sources such as this, referencing Orkhon inscriptions, born of Göktürk script. Also . Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's vague. Also not a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if "Ancient Turks" can be something alternative. Beshogur (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously better. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per wp:commonname. Beshogur is correct. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Beshogur. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Türks" is not just more uncommon, but it will also cause a lot of confusion. Aintabli (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like that. Word Turkic or Turk is already an umbrella term for Turkic peoples. Iranian page also uses the umbrella term Iranian which is ultimately unite all Iranic peoples but no one confuses them with Iranians of Iran. If I call them Gokturk they wouldn't even know what means. Turuk, Turk or Tujue is historical terms even Kok Turk or Kok Turk make much more sense than merging Turkish words (blue/sky + Turk). Volgabulgari (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it may cause a lot of confusion with Turkic peoples or even Turkish people. Nagsb (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per wp:commonname. If we rename them "Turks", then we should rename other Turkic tribes as "Turks", that would be a nonsense and confusing for our readers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Gokturks weren't called themselves Gokturk. So, why should use a name coined by 18th cent. scholarship? Ancient Turks, Turuks or Turks or even Tujue would be a better terminology merging Turkish Gok + Turk. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because WP:COMMONNAME matters. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, if "ancient Turks" is an equivalent, exchangeable term then that is the WP:COMMONNAME, as well as then being a term that is more natural in English, as opposed to a Turkish term with umlauts. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, then it would be better to call them "Ancient Turks" old "Old Turks" rather then "Turks" according to WP:COMMONNAME. "Ancient Turks" is an anglophonic, scientific terminology denoting an ethnolinguistical grouping. It is clear that they are not directly related to Turkish people as WP:COMMONAME allow us to use same umbrella term "Iranian peoples" instead of Iranic peoples. Today, no one would confuse them with Persians of Iran. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't specifically request "Turks" but other suggestions may be better for WP:COMMONNAME Volgabulgari (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:COMMONNAME is not about how peoples call themselves, rather about what is said in reliables sources. I quote : "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  07:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for late reply. Then usage of Tujue, Turks, Turuk or Ancient Turk is either same or more common than word "Gokturk" in Google research which also preferred instead of Gokturk by Peter B Golden Volgabulgari (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is certainly ample scope for further discussion on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WOW, then I'd like to hear opinions of other moderators on Tujue. They first mentioned by Chinese sources. They were primarily mentioned by Shuishu and Tangshu. It seems this usage still lives. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * talk=yes Volgabulgari (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:Commonname. It's funny how we got to this point since as much as I know, the ethnohistorical term - "Gokturks" has never been seriously challenged in academic literature. Though I may incline towards "Tujue" if needed and I know it would be unwise. Nashville whiz (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ethnohistorical term "Gokturks" has been the subject of academic debate and discussion in various literature since 20th cent. "Gokturks" have been conducted by scholars in various fields, including history, anthropology, linguistics, and archaeology. This use preferred in 18th for not confusing Gokturks with Anatolian Turkish people. But today we have a daily-used word Turkic term. In Wikipedia, terms "Iranian" and "Iranic" are often used interchangeably. Today we have a Wiki page of "Iranian peoples" but no one confuses them with Persians of Iran.
 * Scholars who have contributed to these debates and discussions include Peter B. Golden, a leading expert on the Turkic peoples of Central Asia; Christopher Atwood, a historian of Central Asia and Inner Asia; and Thomas J. Barfield, an anthropologist and expert on Afghanistan and Central Asia.
 * Other scholars who have contributed to this debate include Istvan Zimonyi, a historian of Inner Asian and Turkic history; Deniz Ekici, a linguist specializing in Old Turkic language and literature; and Alpaslan Akay, a historian of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
 * My honest suggestions are Old Turks, Ancient Turks, Kok Turks or simply Turks. These would be much more accurate than Gok-turk. As contemporary cultural and political sensitivities have evolved, scholars have become more aware of the potential implications of using certain historical terms, and more willing to question the accuracy and validity of such terms. Volgabulgari (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It would helpful if you could bring what sources you have that show that these terms are concurrent. I have found this, for instance, which uses the term 'ancient Turkish Qaghanate' in place of the First Turkic Khaganate and more generally prefers "ancient Turks", using that term first, other in brackets: "ancient Turks (Tu-jue, Göktürk)". This source also discusses the "ancient Turks" in considerable depth without at any point in referencing the term 'Göktürk', making that term clearly far from universal. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I apologize for late reply. Peter B. Golden hypothesized that term "Gokturks" may have originally meant "celestial Turks" or "blue Turks" in reference to a particular Turkic tribe that had a reputation for their celestial or heavenly connections.may have and he claims that it later came to be used as a general term for the confederation of tribes that they led. In terms of terminology, Golden generally refers to the Gokturks as "early Turks" or "ancient Turks" rather than simply "Turks" to distinguish them from later Turkic groups.
 * whether these scholars refer to the Golden use the term "Gokturks" and "Turks" more interchangeably to refer to the Gokturks in general. Ancient Turk or Old Turk would be more of the point. Volgabulgari (talk) 17:56, 21 April 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.
 * Oppose. Common name and clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fake name "Gök/Köktürk" real name "Ökük Türük"
Hello, I am 38 years old Finnish researcher on Turkish history specifically on ancient Turkish roots. I have learned to read Orkun scripts from books of Mehmet Kömen, Turgay Tüfekçioğlu, Kazım Mirşan and ofcourse from my study at Istanbul University. since I already knew Turkish from my education at Istanbul University learning to recognise modern meaning of the tamgas in Orkun was easier for me. To get to the point; The name of "Göktürk" is wrong and its real name also is not "Kök" either. The real name is "Ökük Türük" meaning: "Ök"= Creator/Heavenly Sky, "Ük" Creator/holy. For "Türük" we dont even have to go back that far because in nowadays Turkish both words are still being used. "Tür" means "Race" (nowadays Turkish still same word) and "Ük" as again means "Holy/Creator". So if you put this all together you get "Ökük Türük". Meaning the "Holy Race (which is descent) of the Heavenly Sky/Creator". The misreading is "Gök" from "Kök", yes. But "Kök" itself is also a misreading. Because in the Orkun inscription its says [𐰜𐰇𐰚 : 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜] from right to left [𐰜] means "Ök", [𐰇] means "Ü" and [𐰚] means "K". So its not possible for it to start with a "K" and to end with a "Ök". This is a false reading done by the famous Turkish historian "Talat Tekin". However if we look at his Orkun translations of the word "Ötüken" [𐰇𐱅𐰜𐰤:𐰖𐰃𐱁] we can see from right to left he tranated the [𐰜] as "ÜK". While in his translation of "Köktürk" he translates this as just "K"? There are a total of 28+ translations of Talat Tekin where he translates this as "ÜK" to a counter of only 3 translations with this false "K". To get things straight there are 2 K's in old Turkish. [𐰜]=ÖK/ÜK, [𐰚]=k. So I want to suggest we should change the name of the page from the false misreading of a misreading "Göktürk" to its original name like in the Orkun texts "Ökük Türük". HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You make an interesting point, however I would like to point out that the readings of many Turkic letters are generally pretty inconsistent and the letter 𐰜 can mean not just ök and ük, but also kö, kü, and k. 2601:47:0:FBF0:E155:A4BE:9097:D1C6 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that's not true, it would only mean ÖK or ÜK. If it would also mean K then there's 2 letters written differently but with the same sound. I Have the whole Evolution from Tamga to letter of the "ÖK" tamga. ÖK meant creator. Even today we can see traces of this, in Turkish to people who have no mother we call them "Öksüz' meaning "without ök" without a creator. I you want you should message me from instagram @elturcos27 I can prove everything to you. The only correct way to read Orkun is through the translations of Kazım Mirşan. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And to add one more thing, "kök türk" has no meaning. That just means "roots turk??" Ökük however is also very similar if not exactly the same meaning as the etymology of "Turk". "TÜR ÜK" HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)