Talk:Göktürks/Archive 1

Comment
I've come upon the spelling Gok-Türk. Given that it seems to be that the purpose of Wikipedia is to make life unbearable for all those who don't have dead keys, does anybody know whether this is the correct spelling? -Itai 15:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Only in Turkish, and as I recall this is the English version of the Wikipedia. The accepted form of 'Turk' in English is, not suprisingly, 'Turk'. However, Sinor, Soucek and others do use an umlaut over the o in 'Gök' or 'Kök'. (Sikandarji 12:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Translation notes
Moved from Translation into English.
 * Article: de:Göktürken
 * Corresponding English-language article: Gokturks
 * Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
 * Originally Requested by: Itai 16:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Status: Translated, but review requested by Jmabel 23:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Jmabel notes: User:Sandman has now reviewed, with minor edits. Complete. -- Jmabel 16:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Staged contribution
Pasted material from Turkic peoples : I hope it is useful Refdoc 23:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GOKTURKS'

After the fall of the Hun advent and Turkic domination of Asia and Europe, the next Turkic federation was that of the Gok-Turks who originated from the Ashina tribe who were natives of today's Xiang Uygur. The Ashinas were the first Turkic tribe to use the name "Turk" as a political name. The Gok-Turk empire was established by Ilterish Khagan, and perhaps the most famous of the Gok-Turk princes was Kul Tegin who is mentioned in the Orhun Inscriptions dated back to the 7th century.

The Gok-Turk empire, extending from the Black Sea across central Asia to the Pacific Ocean united the Turks as a nomadic confederation. The great difference between the Gok-Turk and it's preceding Hun empire was the subordination of the Turks and their temporary Khans (lords) to a central authority that was left in the hands of a dynasty of tribal chiefs. Shamanism, the worship of nature was the most common practiced religion in the Gok-Turk state, as it was prior to the establishment of the empire. In 582, shortly after its inception, the Gokturk Empire was divided into two khanates (states) which became known as the eastern and western empires. Both khanates were attacked by the Tang dynasty of China in 630 and were subjugated by the Chinese for years, until the first Gok-Turk state finally collapsed. Fifty-two years later, the Turks revolted against the Chinese and were able to establish the second Gok-Turk empire which lasted until 740.

The first Gok-Turk state

Rulers of the eastern & western portions:

Bumin Khaghan (552)

Kolo (552) Bek Khan Khaghan (553 - 572) Taspar Khaghan (572 - 581)

Ishbara Khaghan (582 - 587)

Yehu (587)

Tulan (587-599)

Buchia (599-601)

Jimin Khaghan (601 - 609)

Shibi Khaghan (609 - 619)

Chulo Khaghan (619 - 621)

Illigh Khaghan (621 - 630)

Tardu (Western ruler) (582 - 603)

Shih-keui (603-618)

Tong Yabgu (618 - 630)  Important events in the first Gok-Turk empire: 552: Bumin and Istemi overthrew the Juan-Juans

555: Final defeat of the Juan-Juans

571: Istemi’s campaigns in Azerbaijan and Transoxiana

582: Division of the Turk empire into Eastern and Western khanates

600: Tardu’s campaign against the Chinese

603: Tie Le tribes kill Tardu

610: Rise of the Eastern Khaghanate

618: Rise of the Western Khaghanate

630: Jieli Khaghan captured by the Tang Chinese, Tong Yabgu killed by his uncle, both Turk khanates collapse

659: Last remnants of the Western Turks subjugated by the Tang

682: Khutlugh founded the second Gok-Turk empire

The second Gok-Turk empire

Rulers of the eastern & western portions:

Kutlugh Iltirish Khaghan (682 - 692)

Khapaghan Khaghan (692 - 716)

Inel Bogu Khaghan (716)

Bilge Khaghan (716 - 734)

Turk Bilge Khaghan (734 - not clear)

Tenri Khan (734-741)

Khutlugh Bilge Khaghan (741-743)

Ilitmish Bilge Khaghan (743) Ozmish Khaghan (743)

Bomei Khaghan (743-744)  Important Events in the second Gok-Turk empire

682: Kutluk and Ilterish founded the second Gok-Turk Empire

693: Kapgan Kaghan’s campaign against the On-Ok and Kyrgyz tribes

701: The Transoxiana Campaigns

710: Defeat of the Kyrgyz revolt

716: Kapgan Kaghan killed by the Bayirku tribe, his son is overthrown by Bilge and Kul Tegin 720: Bilge Kaghan’s Chinese Campaign 725: Death of Ayguji Tonyukuk

731: Death of Kul Tegin

734: Bilge Kaghan’s campaign against the Kitan and Tatabi tribes, Bilge poisoned

742: The "Rebel Alliance" capture Otugen and depose the last Gokturk ruler

I've incorporated much of the narrative material above into the article, except "Ilterish Kaghan" which I suspect may be a misunderstanding and I will take up at Turkic peoples. -- Jmabel 18:20, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) (Looks like someone beat me to it.) -- Jmabel 18:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Much of User:Refdoc's list of rulers here contradicts what is in the article (and it doesn't come from our article Turkic peoples). Since I have no actual expertise in this area, I am not going to attempt a merge. Could someone more expert please sort this out? Citations would be very nice, and if there are contradictory sources, could someone please make that clear? -- Jmabel 18:28, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Blue Turks -> Many Turks
Okey now folks!I think it now is the time to end the biggest confusion about the meaning of the name "Göktürk".As we all know or at least the people who know a bit about this situation the name göktürk comes to existence with two words coming together to form one word.

And since my childhood our techers have taught us about those people and both the teachers and our school books were quite determined to    make us accept that the word in deed meant BLUE TURKS.And since those days whenever i've come up to this word i couldn't help myself not trying to set a link to accept the sense the word made.Although I kept on thinking all this time I have not been able to set a link.Basically,the word made no acceptable sense.In fact,the only sense it had made to me was some Turkish people in the looks of the SMURFS.

After all those years and through very intense researches I have been able to find out the original shape of the word and the truth behind the spelling and ridiculous meaning of the one which we all have been forced to accept and learn.

Because the runes were found by people who didn't have an extensive information about Turkish linguistics,when the word GOKTURK was decoded on those stones it was accepted in accordance with the closest meaning in Modern Turkish.And since the lack of the Turkish people studying their own language,for a whole nation has not been able to bring up an expert to study their mother tongue,although the word did not mean anything it was accepted as the non-Turkish discoverer of the Orhon runes decoded it.(The guy may not have had bad intentions but I don't think he spent any effort on this word to find out what it meant.)

Anyway,as I have been able to find out the correct spelling of the word sholud be as "Kögtürk" meaning "many" or "crowded" Turks.

As we all know,through ages languages go through changes and lose some of their characteristics whilst gaining different qualities.Thus,in modern Turkish the word kög changed to the word çok(pronounced chock).

As another sample I'm gonna give you the Gobi desert.The meaning of Gobi again comes from two different words forming one word.The words are "Kög"(Çok in Modern Turkish meaning Much/Many in English) and "Biyig"(Büyük in Modern Turkish meaning Big in English).

So was it Kögbiyig in its original form and origin and it meant "much big" or simply "very big" as it in deed is one of the biggest deserts of trhe world.

So from this point we can set the link that the Kögtürks were not consist of one tribe but so many Turkish tribes and for it was a union of Turks they apparently were crowded and chose the name "Manyturks" to identify themselves as a nation. with regards,

Erhanovich


 * Do you have any citation for this, or is this just your personal conjecture? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the latter Refdoc 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * FTR gök means SKY also in modern Turkish, actually blue is the second meaning of the word. Also we know the Tuks were shamanist before islam and sky was holly to them also they named their god as gök-tanrı(god). --Utku5 08:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FTR gök means SKY also in modern Turkish, actually blue is the second meaning of the word. Also we know the Tuks were shamanist before islam and sky was holly to them also they named their god as gök-tanrı(god). --Utku5 08:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In the Göktürk language, equivalent of "many" or "crowded" is "köp", not "kök". The name of old Turkic god is also "Kök Tengri". "Gök" means "Sky" in modern Turkish spoken in Turkey, in all other Turkic languages "Sky" is whether "Gök" or "Kök". "Kök Türk" means "Celestial Turks" just like "Kök Böri" means "Celestial Wolf". "Kök" refers to "Kök Tengri", the Sky God, because of this "Blue", the colour of the skies, is the traditional colour of Turic peoples. Therefore "Kök Türk" or "Kök Törük" as original, means "Blue Turks" and the colour blue is a symbol of being sacred or god related, "Kutlu" in Turkic mythology and in modern Turkic languages.Orhanoglu 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO the Kök/Gök = "Blue" = "East(ern)" Turks just as "white" meant "west" or "gold(en)", as in horde meant "central". Doc Rock 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tanrı (Tengri) means god in current and ancient Turkish. And the name of the god (like Allah is Islam) is Göktanrı. Means the sky god. And since sky is blue it also means blue (like orange as a colour) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.241.220.152 (talk • contribs) 10 September 2006.


 * Sorry but all those informations are from the high school history course books. No citations no deepening. Just same repeatings. Everyone knows that Gök means Sky in Turkish. But we do not have any other sources which refers to a God who lives in or who is the sky. Also, the claim of the existence of Shamanism among old-Turkic tribes is also non-realistic, since we know there were slight cultural and religious differences between Shaman Mongol tribes and Turkish tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.157 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Iran/Persia
In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

EURASIAN Articles COLLECTION
- Bobet 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very confused by the above addition. Is it supposed to be relevant to this article? Some of it looks possibly vaguely on topic, and I can't read Chinese so a lot of this means nothing to me, but, for example, as far as I know the Gokturks were never within 2,000 kilometres of the Dobruja. And role playing games about Japan? So what? A long list like this, of no clear relevance to the article, is really not very useful, since it would take hours to sort through and see if there is anything here, especially since much of it is clearly off topic. All of this seems to be links to one site, which makes me a bit suspicious, and smells of linkspam. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bestlyriccollection, who added the above list of links, left a note on my user talk page that claims these are relevant: "I have collected these articles on Dede Korkut, Alpamysh and other Destans. Paksoy has done most of the writing. I believe these writings will be most valuable in categorizing early Turkic peoples into great federations like Gokturk, Oghuz, Qarluq etc." I'm certainly not wading through these, though someone else is more than welcome to! Again, though, some of these look to me to be of little or no relevance to this article, and it would be very useful if someone could point out which of these might actually be relevant here. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Runes
Linking "runic" to Runic alphabets seems wrong to me: that article specific to Germanic runes. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "Gokturkish" a word?
Can you list the primary source for the term "Gokturkish"? This should just be "Gokturk Empire". AverageTurkishJoe 03:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

maps
the maps on this page suck they should replaced

does anyone know the correct form of the rule't title: khan, kan, han, qan, qaghan, kaghan, khaghan, qaĝan, kaĝan, qağan, or kağan. their should be some consensus on turkic to english transcriptions for wikipedia--Gurdjieff 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Orkhon inscriptions there are two titles used; Kan and Kagan. The first is inscriped as "KN" and the second as "KGN". In modern Turkish "Kan" is now "Han" and "Kagan" is "Kaan" or "Kağan" but the original titles used by Göktürks are mentioned above. Orhanoglu 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Large changes without citation
User:Gurdjieff and User:66.56.75.252 have made large changes recently, including large changes to the list of rulers, without citing a single source. Since I have almost no relevant knowledge, and the previous version did not clearly cite sources for this either, I'm not planning to change anything myself, but I would suggest that someone should come forward with some sources for what is apparently a contested matter. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

reply i've done a large amount of research on the gokturks so this is from all over the internet, there were alot of organizational problems with the article. originally, i had only intended to write the bio's for the khans but i felt I had to fix some of the other problems as well. the major souces were the turkish wikipedia article and the book turks vol1--Gurdjieff 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "the book turks vol1" means nothing. Publisher? Date?
 * The Turkish Wikipedia article is a reasonable place to look, but does it give any citations?
 * Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Gokturks → Göktürks – If we have articles about Polish cities with about 4 accent marks in the name, adding two umlaut(s) to the sure wouldn't hurt. After all, it is the correct spelling. Also, I believe this article was created prior to when we were using UTF-16 to store our data. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Oppose: stick with English name. Jonathunder 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support without the umlaut it's just incorrect. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. If that's the proper spelling, the article should be moved. &mdash; Itai (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Three basic reference works: Sinor (Cambridge History of Inner Asia), Christian (A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia) and Unesco (History of Civilizations of Central Asia vol. III) all use ö in stead of o. Furthermore they use 'Türks' when they specifically mean the Gök empires. But there remains another problem: Gök or Kök? Gök is the modern Turkish transcription and Kök is the original, old Turkish, transcription originating from the Orkhon inscriptions. In German scientific literature 'kök' is used always, never 'gök'. Therefore I think the article should be renamed in either Kök Türks or second best Gök Türks. Guss2 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support rename to whichever version ("Göktürks", "Gök Türks", "Kök Türks", etc) considered most accurate, so long as redirect/s from "Gokturks", "Gok Turks", "Kok Turks", etc retained or created. David Kernow 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Pro as per nom. --Matthead 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved, of course. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 07:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support rename to i agree with guss2 the most correct title of the article would be kök türks since this is the name THEY self-applied.--Gurdjieff 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the umlauted form. Concur with Kernow. Doc Rock 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to tujue--刻意(Kèyì) 15:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tujue (突厥 tú jué)
The problem with using Mandarin pronounciation for Chinese characters that were chosen to represent as closely as possible the native words as heard by the Chinese recording them is that the phonetics were radically different from Mandarin. Sino- Korean and Japanese pronounciations of the Chinese characters, therefore, are extremely important in reconstructing the phonetics as they preserve these older phonemes (albeit sometimes with changes over time). 突厥 tú jué is an excellent example of this. 突厥 tú jué represented Türküt 突厥 is read in modern Korean 돌궐 = tol kwöl; however, in Middle Korean Chinese characters which in Chinese ended with a glotally stopped "t" entering tone transformed into r/l of Modern Korean (so we had, then tur kwöt, approximating Türküt much better than tú jué. Shouldn't a note about tú jué  representing Türküt be included?  Doc Rock 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see at least someone agrees with me! You see, Doc Rock, I had tried to add the information about the Sino-Korean and Sino-Japanese readings of the Chinese characters in question, but some jerk came along and reverted my edit. Check this part of the page's history:


 * (cur) (last) 13:50, 2 May 2006 222.165.24.196 (Talk) (remove unnecessarily addition)
 * (cur) (last) 16:16, 30 April 2006 67.171.213.134 (Talk)


 * Apparently, someone opined that information regarding a more accurate approximation of the contemporary pronunciation of the 突厥 (*Turgwŏt, *Turgwət, *Turgwet) ethnonym was an "unnecessarily addition." Also, I think it would not be too off-topic to mention that the reconstructed pronunciation of Middle Chinese 突厥 more closely resembles the name of the medieval and early modern Torghut (Manchu Turgūt) tribe, a subgroup of the Oirat (a.k.a. "Western Mongols"), than it does the name of the Turks.


 * Also, what is the basis for reading 突厥 as Tújué with a rising tone on both syllables in modern Mandarin? All the Mandarin speakers I know pronounce 突 as tū with a high level tone. Is some special adjustment to the pronunciation of this character made when it is found in the historical ethnonym 突厥? Ebizur 15:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thing is you see nation had shore to the Japan sea and close to Korea however a contact in never mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.241.220.152 (talk • contribs) 10 September 2006.

STATE
On the "stateness" of the G's: definition: state= "a politically organized body of people under a single government".. Sounds like a Qaghanate would qualify to me. Doc Rock 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So would you consider each of the North American First Nations a state as well? - Jmabel | Talk

If each was "a politically organized body of people under a single government," then, yes. Doc Rock 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is ducking the question. My point is: how organized do they have to be? How organized the government? And is there a smallest size where the term "state" is appropriate? - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanization of names recorded in Classical Chinese writing
I am sorry to have to bring this matter to the table again, but I think we need to reach a consensus regarding how Wikipedia will present romanizations of ethnonyms, toponyms, etc. that were recorded in ancient times using the Chinese script.

It truly bothers me when I read a page like this one about the Köktürks/Göktürks to see ancient ethnonyms romanized according to the standard Pinyin transcriptions of the Modern Mandarin readings of the Chinese characters that were originally used to transcribe the ethnonyms. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Chinese language can tell you that the pronunciation of Chinese, especially that of its northern dialects (i.e., Mandarin), has changed dramatically over the past thousand years or so. Using the Modern Mandarin readings to romanize the name of the ancient 突厥 (generally assumed to refer to an entity identical to "Gokturks") as Tū jué is a gross anachronism that I believe should not be perpetuated by a new-age encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which aims to overcome the inadequacies of earlier paper-bound encyclopedias. The 突厥 ethnonym is read in the Korean language as 돌궐 (//, romanized as Dolgweol or Tolgwŏl) and in the Japanese language as とっけつ (*/tot-kwet/ > /tokketsu/). The Sino-Korean and Sino-Japanese readings of the name are a much better approximation of the contemporary pronunciation of the ethnonym that was transcribed in Chinese historical documents as 突厥. On the one hand, the Sino-Korean and Sino-Japanese readings clearly show the connection between the ancient 突厥 and the early modern Torghut or Turgūt tribe of the Oirat (the so-called "Western Mongols," of which the Kalmyk people are one branch). On the other hand, the romanization based on Modern Mandarin readings is not suggestive of any historiological connection that might be drawn by a person familiar with Central Asian and Northeast Asian ethnography; a Pinyin romanization of the Modern Mandarin reading, such as Tū jué, is a meaningless and useless cipher. We might as well not present any romanization of 突厥 if the only romanization we are going to present is the one based on Modern Mandarin pronunciation.

So, is there any way that we could present a romanization of 突厥 that would more accurately reflect the contemporary pronunciation of the ethnonym that was transcribed with those Chinese characters? I think it would be useful to develop a template that would allow us to indicate a reconstructed Old Chinese or Middle Chinese form, or else to indicate the modern Korean and Japanese pronunciations of such non-Han Chinese ethnonyms, toponyms, and the like alongside their readings in Mandarin Pinyin. Ebizur 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is probably worth pursuing. You might want to look into how we handle classical Hebrew. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename issue Request to move to Tujue
Tujue was the name first appeared in historic records but not Göktürks.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your assumption is wrong. You are talking about Chinese historical records as if these records are the primary source. But in this case they are just secondary sources, primary sources in casu are the Orkhon inscriptions. The name used in these inscriptions is transcribed as Göktürks and not as Tujue. Göktürks is the name they used to call themselves, not a chinese transcription of that name. For the same reason the template with the Chinese and Korean names is completely out of place. Why should names for non-chinese peoples be transcribed in Chinese of Korean. By doing so one could also add the same template to articles about e.g. the Germans, Ivorians or Tuvaluans (to name just a few), since their names also have a transcription in Chinese and Korean! Guss2 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you get any source to support your claim？Tujue in chinese record appeared hundred years before the making of Orkhon script--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. I think it is not a matter of when the sources are written, but how close they are to the subject they write about. The Orkhon inscriptions are from the Göktürks themselves, Tujue in the Chinese records is about the Göktürks. Since this discussion is not about the sources itself, but about what should be the proper name of this people (Tujue or Göktürks) I think the inscriptions and therefore the name Göktürks are prevalent. Guss2 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The move is out of the question. "Tujue" is a name used in Chinese sources. Byzantine and Persian sources call them "Turks", but that name would be very ambiguous in English. In Russian, the ancient Turks are "tyurki", while the modern Turks are "turki". The difference is subtle but clear. In English, we have no alternative to the "Gokturks". That's how they are called in modern English-language academic discourse. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems I am not fully understood.Did Gokturk correspond to their real name when they called themselves？Tujue was also a transcription from the name which they called themselves--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The etymology of the names Göktürks and Türks are unclear and have more than one explanation. The best book about this problem I have seen so far is Golden, Peter, An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples. Ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East, Wiesbaden (Harrassowitz) 1992, ISBN 3-447-03274-X. He discusses the meaning of Gök and the evolution of the pronuncation of 突厥. In early Middle Chinese it should be pronounced close to türküt (following Karlgren). So I think you are right by stating Tujue is a transcription of Türk, but since nowadays the pronuncation of Tujue differs too much from Türk, it is better not to rename this article. This is also why I proposed earlier to remove the template with the names of Göktürk in both Chinese and Korean. Guss2 13:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You made a good point.But,in the other hand,it seems Gokturks this name itself was constructed by the comparison method from Middle Chinese materials.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This I don't know, you may be right. But as far as I can remember from the book of Peter Golden the name 'Göktürks' is on the Orkhon inscriptions, and usually translated as 'Blue Turks'. Guss2 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Article represents myths as historical facts
The article claims that Turk rulers' Ashina clan originated in Xinjiang province of western China. This is a myth. There are some credible references that are listed but the article itself dies not reflect what these references state. This is a poorly written article that needs a lot of improvement. The name Gokturks is simply a modern Turkish POV. These are the original Turks and so should the article be named. Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced flag
The IP address 195.174.21.72 continues to revert me edits of removing the Gokturk flag which has no sources and its use by the Gokturks is dubious at best. So please, said IP, state a reason for undoing, instead of just continuing to revert for no reason.Rcduggan (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected this article for week to give interested parties time to come to some consensus about this flag issue. Apparently one of the issues is the refs being in Turkish. One can find Turkish speakers to verify things from Category:User tr. Why isn't this credible for the flag issue, though?--chaser - t 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That site is not credible because it does not state that the flag was actually in use, it just shows pictures of flags, most of which have no proof. The only site I could find with information on the flag states: "o the best of our knowledge, the historical existence of most of these flags is not proven..."

http://www.fahnenversand.de/fotw/flags/tr_imp.html That is from this site. Rcduggan (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand Turkish, you should look at web site of Presidency of Republic of Turkey. I added it for that. There is a writing in that page. It is about Presidental Insignia and there is sixteen flag in here. It is a source for us. Source of this page is web site of Presidency of Republic of Turkey. It is a serious source. --Dsmurat (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: flag
I have opened a request for comment on the issue of whether this flag image should be included in the Gokturks infobox. Apparently the only two sources are: The issue is whether the sources are sufficient to include the flag.
 * this page by the modern Turkish government which has the flag next to the words "Göktürk Empire" with 15 other historical Turkish states (but no other written information), and;
 * a Flags of the World page that refers to the flag as "alleged" and says "To the best of our knowledge, the historical existence of most of these flags is not proven and we are not aware of their origin and designer."

The most relevant guideline I can find is Manual of Style (flags), which doesn't seem to be helpful to this unique situation. I invite comments from parties without previous involvement in this page. Thank you.--chaser - t 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My involvement came from WP:EAR where Rcduggan asked for help on the issue. I gave him a couple of sources that had already been considered, but they all say that it is the "alleged flag" or something like.  Also, I noticed that he had (incorrectly) listed the image for deletion.  I let him know that he did not have to delete the image to remove it from the article, and the image had already survived a deletion attempt (see here, here, and here) because of the information left here.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 11:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the deletion notice for now, until that is resolved. Rcduggan (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From RFC: Seems if it was authentic there would certainly be some accessible published sources that could tell you something about the flag, not just its appearance in popular, unreferenced 'Flags of the World' books where its likely copied right from the same source that the Turkish government site is using. Barring those reliable sources, a few web links aren't enough to justify its inclusion. Brando130 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sources about the flag (e.g. Lev Gumilev ... etc.) as explained in the talk page of the image (here). However, i wonder whether there exists sources claiming the contrary (this flag is not the Gokturk's flag). Unless it's falsified, i'm in favor of keeping the image. It's sourced (Gumilev is a well-known expert on Turkic history) and informative about the mythological symbols used by the Gokturks. Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brando, in part because our verifiability policy requires reference to a "reliable, published source" and says that the burden lies with the editor who desires to include disputed material. In all three available references, there is no clear statement that the Gokturks used the flag. However, we could compromise by putting the flag image further down the article (not in the infobox), and note that the Gokturks may have used it. Thoughts?--chaser (away) - talk 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing we know with almost 100% certainty, it's that they didn't use "it" (i.e. this design). The only thing that's sourced is that they may have used something with some kind of a wolf shape on it. As somebody else said elsewhere, it's as if in a thousand years somebody acted on the information that a mythical empire back in the 20th century used a flag with "stars and stripes" on it, invented some design with a few stars and stripes in a random arrangement and random colors, and then said: hey, this is the reconstructed US flag, look, it's sourced! Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gumilev is a published source (even the relevent the page numbers were given by User:Barefact in the talk page of the image). If necessary, i will have no objection to a note as "the Gokturk flag as mentioned by Gumilev" or the already proposed "compromise" by Chaser. Regards, E104421 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gumilev in the source passage cited is relying on some other guy, "[Bichurin, vol. I, p. 229]". That's probably "Bichurin N.Y. (Iakinth). Sobranie svedeniy o narodah, obitavshih v Sredney Azii v drevnie vremena, v 3-h tomah, Moskva; Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR, 1950 – 1953." a three-volume work apparently about ancient central Asian peoples. Has anybody had access to that? If there's not more in there than the info that some flags had a wolf head on them, that might be interesting enough to include in the text, but it's certainly not enough to create a pictorial reconstruction on that basis (no info about colours, shapes, orientation, etc.) All other refs given here and elsewhere are to websites, all of which evidently depend on each other in copying the same image from some common source. None of them is remotely close to being a reliable source (yes, that includes the Turkish government site; the webmaster of the presidency of the Turkish republic has no business teaching us ancient central Asian history.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, the webmaster of the presidency of the Turkish republic obviously has no business teaching us ancient central Asian history. The site belongs to Turkish presidency, not the webmaster. Anyways, it appears that there are very few sources mentioning the flag in the internet. The flag is reportedly appeared in the stamp series of Turkic states (2nd. series) in 1985 by PTT of the Republic of Turkey (the link is here). There is also a paper by on THE NAME "TURK" AND TURKISH STAMPS mentioning the wolf icon in the flag. I guess the FOTW pages reproduced the flag according to the "official description" (explained in the FTOW page as "...All sources give an identical presentation of the Empires, which probably comes from some official document. In the following paragraphs, this description is given as the "official description"..."). The one of them is probably the one in the presidency of the Republic of Turkey. It was reported to be in the stamp series of the governmental PTT in 1985, i do not think that the webmaster is responsible for this again as suggested above. Regards. E104421 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What about including textual information in lieu of the image?--chaser - t 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * E10442: The president of Turkey has no more business teaching us ancient Asian history than his webmaster. Neither has the Turkish post office. Reliable sources means sources from well-informed people. In this instance, only archaeologists and historians would count. Only thing in that respect is one historian who apparently once said something about a wolf. All the rest seems to be inventions made in modern Turkey. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither the president nor the webmaster is responsible for the flag. This is obvious. The official (here govermental) institutions do not reflect the opinion of a person but the whole institution. The wolf legend is well-known and documented in many places and the ones mentioning the flag are presented in the talk page (Gumilev, Bichurin, Mustafa Aksoy). Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "institution" as a whole has even less business teaching us ancient central Asian history than the president himself or his webmaster. And you are again overstating the sourcing. Aksoy is far from a reliable source (that paper is just terrible); Gumilev has exactly one passing note depending on Bichurin, and about Bichurin nobody has yet looked up what he actually says. Nothing indicates we have enough material to base a reconstruction on, and even more importantly, nobody knows who actually made this reconstruction, and based on what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of Fut.Perf., Nikita Bichurin was not a some other guy, he is an icon of Sinology and history, and the literature based on his works would overload a largest commercial semi. The article Nikita Bichurin is too synoptic, but it gives a gist of his prominence. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Notice: Image:GokturkFlag.png has been nominated for deletion; please leave your comments here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious article name : Gökturks
The Gök Türks (Blue Turks) were the first Turkic people to use the name Turk to identify themselves. Some of the issues I see with the article are: --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This article and the Turkic Kaghanate were combined to redirect to this one. Gök Turks were a people, the Turkic Kaghanate was the empire these people founded and ruled. The two are not the same thing.  I recommend separate articles for the Gök Türks and their khaganates. The one for Gök Türks should have the words Gök or Kök = Blue and Türk as separate words.
 * 2) The article starts with "The Göktürkler(s) or Köktürkler(s) ..". The suffix -lar, ler is modern Turkish making the word plural. It brings nothing but confusion. The other suffix (s) is perhaps meant for the English plural. This needs to be corrected.

I'll comment again. Can some one provide a refernce for the term "Gök Türkler" in English? It sounds as idiotic as some citizens of Turkey insisting on the country's name being called "Turkiye" in English.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag ?
Have not Göktürk a flag ? Please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.137.20 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC) This has been done before. The ahistorical, unsourced flag on FOTW is inappropriate for this page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See Image:Flag of Göktürks.svg; it's the same uploader as last time, I think.   Fl ee tf la me   00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to get into this debate again, but should the flag be removed from the Gokturks page? It has been added to the infobox again. Rcduggan (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kürşat
Kürşat ( 阿史那結社率, Ashina Jiesheshuai,Кюрчат ,Куршат ) was an important figure in Turkish history. Although his planned revolt was unsuccessful, his legendary figure probably contributed much to the future second empire. I think his name should be mentioned in the Dual Empires section. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Titles
The title Khagan has been written as Qhağan and the title Yabgu as Yabğu.I think the title should be written either in English or in Turkish but not in a mixture of languages. The letter Q is not used in Turkish and the letter ğ is not used in English. These two letters can't be used in the very same word. For en-wiki, Khagan seems to be the best choise. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ishbara or Anno
Comparing this article with the Uyghur timeline I saw a small difference in details. The second sentence in the section Civil war  is as follows: He had willed the title Qaghan to Mukhan's son Talopien, but the high council appointed Ishbara in his stead. Well, it seems it was Anno (Änlo Panna-Kağan) and not Ishbara who was appointed by the high council. But Anno, after threatened by Talopien ceded the title to Ishbara. (The sources are not clear and I am not sure) I think an expert may edit the section if necessary. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Inner Asia
I have added a wikiink for the phrase "Inner Asia" because it is not in common English use. The Inner Asia article does not do much to clarify the meaning and appears to be a cut and pasted gloss of one particular scholar's use of the phrase. It's not clear where the "northern corner of Inner Asia" would be. Is this phrase necessary? Qemist (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Inner Asia is too wide to be the home of a people. Altai Mountains (Intersection area of modern states of Kazakhistan, China, Russia and Mongolia) would be a better choice. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit dispute
There is an edit dispute over the phrase "blacksmith slave". The phrase is used in sources, though I am not clear of the context in which the phrase is used, and it might be useful for the general reader to put the phrase in context. Who used that phrase and why? The sources themselves indicate that the phrase in unclear - "Beyond A-na-kui's disdainful reference to his "blacksmith slaves" there is ample evidence to show that the Turks were indeed specializing in metallurgy, though it is difficult to establish whether they were blacksmiths or rather miners." - "the so-called 'blacksmith slave' Turk". It appears that this is a contemporary phrase that was used about the Turks, rather than an evaluation by historians. Thomas Becket was called a "turbulent priest" by Henry II, but that is not how historians refer to him.

The wording may need to be reworked to take into account that the Turks appear not to be actual slaves, but were regarded disdainfully by the Rouran Khaganate. Also, it may be appropriate to include that there is some doubt about if they were blacksmiths or miners: "And they lived north of the Altai Mountains for generations, and provided iron for the Rouran Khaganate[8][17]. It is unclear from sources if the Turks mined, smelted or made objects out of iron. The Rouran Khaganate termed them "blacksmith slaves"; though, despite this disdainful attitude, the Turks were powerful enough to demand allegiance through marriage."

If people agree the appropriate wording, then I will unlock the article.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancient Chinese historical records state that, after Houwei emperor defeated Juqu, Turks took refuge in Rouran and lived near Jinshan. They were engaged in iron works. The phrase "blacksmith slaves" also takes place in historical records, but only in the context of Rouran Khan Anagui's insult to Gokturk chief Bumin, who demands marriage with Khan's daughter: You are my blacksmith-slave, how do you dare to use such language! There is no record mentioning neither "Rouran elite", nor "Rouran vassalage system". But some contemporary sources, especially Chinese ones later than 1960s, claim that Turks was slaves, and there was an class struggle in Rouran society which revealed by this insult.


 * However, here it seems like somebody's ambition to call Turks as "slaves" exceeded proper referencing and scientific reasoning. Even Sinor's phrase which shows uncertainty of the matter, referred as supporting "slave-class" view. First in Turkish Vikipedi, and then English Wikipedia, this phrase added to articles Gokturks and Bumin Khagan, while majority in Turkish Vikipedi find it simply unfounded.


 * After bulk of talk in Turkish version, it seems like we have reached a solution. According to Turkish version, this "blacksmith slaves" should be discussed under Bumin's revolt. And after quoting Anagui's insult, it should be stated that there is some arguments originated this insult, which claim that Turks was a part of a vassalage system under Rouran Khaganate. --CenkX (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As CnkALTDS and Takabeg are both involved in this dispute it would be appropriate to wait for their views before moving forward. I would rather the matter is resolved here and now than either CnkALTDS or Takabeg coming back later uncomfortable with changes, and starting an edit war again.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will wait, OK. But one thing need to be clear, the phrase "blacksmith slaves" only used by Anagui for Bumin. In historical records there is no evidence that Turks were called like this.--CenkX (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The compromise in Turkish version is "pro-Turkic". Some users who claim Kök Türks as ancestors, showed nationalistic reaction.

According to Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Reliable seccondary sources use (in English): "blacksmith slave", (in Turkish): "demirci köle". For example in these books, they don't use for Anagui's personal view but common use. Someone explains that this term probably means vassal. Because other turkic tribe was also related iron works and they were real slave. So this word is key word for the Turkic people. But it's not clear whether was (have been) real slave or not. We can prefer to use so-called and " ". Thank you.


 * Denis Sinor, Inner Asia: history-civilization-languages : a syllabus, Routledge, 1997, ISBN 9780700703807, p. 26. Contacts had already begun in 545 A.D. between the so-called "blacksmith-slave" Türk and certain of the small petty kingdom of north China,
 * 馬長壽, 《突厥人和突厥汗國》, 上海人民出版社, 1957, (Ma Zhangshou, Tujue ve Tujue Khaganate), pp. 10-11.
 * 陳豐祥, 余英時, 《中國通史》, 五南圖書出版股份有限公司, 2002, ISBN 9789571128818 (Chen Fengxiang, Yu Yingshi, General history of China), p. 155.
 * Gao Yang, "The Origin of the Turks and the Turkish Khanate", X. Türk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara 22 - 26 Eylül 1986, Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, V. Cilt, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991, s. 731.
 * Burhan Oğuz, Türkiye halkının kültür kökenleri: Giriş, beslenme teknikleri, İstanbul Matbaası, 1976, p. 147. «Demirci köle» olmaktan kurtulup reisleri Bumin'e...
 * 張豈之, 王子今, 方光華, 秦汉魏晋南北朝史, 五南圖書出版股份有限公司, 2002, ISBN 9789571128702, p. 463.
 * Larry W. Moses, "Relations with the Inner Asian Barbarian", ed. John Curtis Perry, Bardwell L. Smith, Essays on Tʻang society: the interplay of social, political and economic forces, Brill Archive, 1976, ISBN 9789004047617, p. 65. Slave' probably meant vassalage to the Juan Juan confederation of Mongolia, whom they served in battle by providing iron weapons, and also marching with qaghan's armies.
 * Asian Pacific quarterly of cultural and social affairs
 * Ritual, state, and history in South Asia: essays in honour of J.C. Heesterman
 * Son of heaven and heavenly Qaghan
 * Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries
 * Mircea Eliade, Charles J. Adams, The Encyclopedia of religion, Vol. 7, Macmillan, 1987, ISBN 9780029094808, p. 243.

Takabeg (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the compromise in Turkish version is Pro-Turkic, then you are pro-Turkic too, because you were the editors of the last version. You're still mentioning about Sinor and Eliade, did you really read what is written there, I doubt. --CenkX (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Takabeg for taking part in this discussion. There is evidence that the phrase "blacksmith slaves" was used, and so it is appropriate to use that term. What is important is that the term is used in the right context and explained. My reading of the sources is that the term was used in a disdainful rather than descriptive manner by a specific contemporary person, Yujiulü Anagui. There is not a question of using a compromise version, as the phrase was used. However, it is not appropriate to use the phrase out of context to assume that the people were in fact slaves, as it appears that the people themselves did not regard themselves as slaves, and sources that I have looked at do not record them as being slaves.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this source says: "known to be tributary to the Juan-juan and to have served as their 'blacksmith-slaves'". So, do we have a conflict of sources?  SilkTork  *YES! 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here Denis Sinor's wording should be adopted: Contacts had already begun in 545 A.D. between the so-called "blacksmith-slave" Türk and certain of the small petty kingdom of north China. So-called (by Anagui, is understood) "blacksmith-slave" Türk (=Bumin). When you say '"blacksmith-slaves" Türks', it is something else.--CenkX (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why there is Blacksmith slave term in the article of the Gök Türks?You know its only a word of Anagui for insult him,it is not a title for Turks its only a insult word and Anaguis viev,no more!--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not about and there is nothing about Nationalistic reaction of Turkish users,but as i see some kurdish users are urgent about using Blacksmith slaves.Actually that was their idea in Turkish Wikipedia but they failed.And now they try ones luck here.Also Sorry for my bad english:)--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The compromise in Turkish version is "pro-Turkic". Some users who claim Kök Türks as ancestors, showed nationalistic reaction."
 * I didn't find any edits of Kurdish users. Off course, not only Turkish but also Kurdish user can edit this article. Anyway term 鍛奴　is related with their origin and we cannot compose sentence such as some historians feel... because in Wikipedia original research is not accepted. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And do you know Mustafa Kemal's speech at Türkocağı in Malatya on February 13, 1931 ?

He said:

Turkish nation who will use railways, will have been honorable by showing the achievement of the first craftmanship and blacksmithy of its origin.

Off course Atatürk's speech is not reference for this article :)) Takabeg (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)