Talk:Oghuz Khagan

problematic edits
While is is a good thing to make a contribution, this article needs to be a general discussion of Oghuz Khan narratives and not a place to recount a particular set of assumptions about the Oghuz narratives. It should make clear the variety of narratives, and the scholarly debate. The key issue is that Oghuz Khan has always been a political symbol, and giving one politicized interpretation of the narrative does not help readers understand how the narratives has been used and changed in many different times and places.

Removing the following section from my original article reflects the tendency to avoid the scholarly approach: "six sons and carries out campaigns in Turkistan, India, Iran, Egypt, Syria, with a grey wolf guide (absent in Abu’l Ghazi’s account). He passes his lands on to his sons at a final banquet. Abū’l-Ghāzī identifies the lineage symbols (tamga seals and ongon spirit guiding birds, 1958: 586) as well as specifying the political hierarchy and seating order at banquets for these sons and their 24 sons."

Please try to provide a comparative perspective, and not just the interpretation from one perspective. Nlight2 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

changes needed
I removed the following: it has to be redone in order to take into account the different versions are not necessarily older and younger, but by different groups with different ideas they want to push. Legends get made to push certain positions. Scholars do not push one version of a legend but show the importance of reading the different ones. The version mentioned here is a late version, because it combines the image of Oghuz Khan with that of Chingiz Khan. Hence it should not be seen as the oldest.

"The oldest version of the story can be found on an Uyghur manuscript in the Turkish manuscript section of the Paris Bibliothèque Nationale. This version of the Oğuzname(Book of Oghuz) tells the legend of Oghuz Khan, and is untouched by the Islamization of Turks and reflects pre-islamic Tengriist and shamanistic themes. Later versions are "Tarih-i Oğuzan ve Türkan"(History of Oghuzs and Turks) section of Cami-üt Tevarih by Rashid-ad Din, another manuscript found in Uzunköprü and was written in Chagatai language (published by Namık Orkun at 1935) and Şeçere-i Terakime by Abu'l Gahzi Bahadır Khan. This later versions are more islamised yet still features shamanistic supernatural themes." Nlight2 (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy edits
I went through this article and made some copy edits and removed the tag. I only rearranged one sentence that was really jumbled and left everything else.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup of Oğuzhan
Because so many people today claim to be a Prince of the Ottoman Dynasty, and were therefore entitled to inherit, The true male members of the House of Osman, currently twenty-four Princes now in the Line of succession to the former Ottoman throne, and their cousin, the Amuca (descendants of Gündüz Bey the older brother of Osman I), tested their Y-DNA. Genetic history of the Turkish people, shows that the common ancestor Ertuğrul, belonged to haplogroup: R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article
His name is accepted widespread as Oghuz Khagan. Khagan is the most accepted form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan Please correct the name of the article. Sbasturk (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Imaginary Picture of Oghuz Khagan and the changes of this page
There are some problems in people's minds about Oghuz Khagan. The picture of Oghuz Khagan in Turkmen's manat is an imaginary picture, in Turkic history, it is contrarian to put an imaginary picture and declare that picture is the person himself. In the "edit page" section I think some users do not understand the value of the person of Oghuz Khagan. The imaginary picture on Turkmen's money is acceptable as long as if you write "representation of Oghuz Khagan" under the imaginary picture. I hope people can understand that Oghuz in Chinese sources and even in Uyghur sources belong to the East Turkic people, not West Turkic people. Even "Oghuz epos" was written by Uyghur people with old Turkic. The picture of Oghuz Khagan has never been drawn before in any Khagan of Turkic. therefore, as I said, I recommend users ad "representation of Oghuz Khagan" under the imaginary picture because this is an English language article page, which means foreign people are reading this page rather than Turkish or other Turkic people. The imaginary picture of Oghuz Khagan in Turkmen's money (manat) looks like a middle eastern man, but in Chinese, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur sources, Oghuz Khagan is an Asian man with dark hairs, slanted eyes, and yellow-white mixed skin. People should respectful of other's ideas and accepted the truth of Turkic history, people who wanted to edit the source should give valuable sources instead of directly writing it down. Oziing (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And sources for that? Beshogur (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

For sources, you can simply read "Oghuz Epos" by Uyghur, if you know Chinese you can "Baidu" thousands of articles. I'm here to discuss your imaginary picture of Oghuz Khagan which belongs to the old Uyghur people, there is no source to declare that Oghuz Khagan's appearance was like middle east people. The imaginary picture of Turkmen's money is simply futility and nonsense, and you are the one who forcible posting the wrong picture over again and again, that is false and wrong information. You should not ask me for the source because you are the one who posted the wrong imaginary pictures over and over again. Indeed, you are the one who needed to give certain and valuable sources to prove the guy on the money is Oghuz Khagan himself, but you can't because it is impossible, because old Uyghur people and old Chinese history have not drawn how he looks like. Oziing (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You should not ask me for the source because you are the one who posted the wrong imaginary pictures over and over again. sure. So the reason is that you don't like that picture? Beshogur (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think the banknote caption would be better written as "representation of Oghuz Khagan" rather than "Oghuz Khan pictured", I'd agree with that and I don't see any problem with that change being made. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

bad reasonings: Especially the second is nonsensical. Should I really explain? Just scroll a bit down. Beshogur (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The image is just a representation of Oghuz Kagan, the Oghuz Kagan in Chinese sources are belong to East Asian Turkic people such as Kirgiz, Uyghur, and Kazakh. The image of Turkmen manat does not have any value to represent Oghuz Kagan who lived two thousand years ago. In Chinese sources there are no any portray of Oghuz Kagan, you cannot put imaginary drawing in Wikipedia.
 * Who said Ottomans were Oghuz? The name Oghuz, is used to use by Uyghur people, you cannot link past Oghuz with Ottomans because there are no any relation

Frankly, I don't know how to give you a source from my history class, and as I said, you can read "Oghuz Epos" by Uyghur people, which is the original one if you are really concerned. There is nothing to be bothered by Oghuz Khagan's picture but bother of wrong information. If you don't understand my statement, I recommend you re-read my two previous messages. The picture is not about being liked or disliked, it is about wrong representation because in history you cannot input any imaginary things like pictures or your own interpretations unless you mention it like "a representation of XXX". In my opinion, you are welcome to reupload the picture again. However, I still strongly uphold my idea and still saying that: you should write "representation of Oghuz Khagan" or "Imaginary picture by Turkmen's manat" because that is the correct way to interpret a hero in Turkic history. You cannot take this common hero in Turkic history and pretend this person is yours. This is a common hero in our history you cannot change it or manipulate it for your own good. Oziing (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you reverted various users and opened another account. Doesn't mean you didn't violate WP:3R. And there is nothing wrong with ancient mythical people being depicten on currencies and using it here. You simply don't like it. That's not a problem, but you can't remove because you didn't like it. Also your school book is not a WP:RS, where are your reliable sources? Beshogur (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've added the image back with the clarification in the caption that it is a "representation". --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I disliked the picture because you cannot input your own interpretation here, this is Wikipedia. The name Oghuz is linguistic in the modern world, you cannot insert any wrong interpretation from your own. 24 boy Oghuz means 24 people in "Oghuz Epos" by old Uyghur. As I said, who said Ottomans were Oghuz tribe that from two thousand years ago? Are there any valuable sources? I learned Turkic history in Beijing that is what I'm talking about. In Chinese sources, in Mahmud Kashgari's book, even in those old Uyghur people who written "Oghuz Epos" mentioned that Oghuz is East people rather than West. The name "Oghuz is a linguistic term not ethnic" Second, I prefer you to study literature and history, and then you will understand why I strongly uphold my opinion about your interpretations, you cannot interpret an article with your own ideas, I hope that is very clear now, please do not ask the same thing over and over again, I will not answer this anymore. In an article, you should have a source to write something down, and I removed the picture because it is a wrong interpretation and there is no source to support the picture in Turkmen's manat is Oghuz Khagan himself. I found a similar source to support my idea of what is Oghuz, what is Oghuz Khagan, and what is the name of Oghuz the meaning, read the article, and if you still don't understand my aim and my point, re-read my previous statements. Source: "Reappraising the Strata and Value of the Turfan Oğuz Nāme and Preliminary Translation" - Jonathan Ratcliffe, Monash University. Oziing (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"you reverted various users and opened another account." No, before I checked the article I am not signed in to my account, and I see you still doing your own wrong interpretation, that is why I signed in and created a talk page. Oziing (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oğuz Kağan is one of the great figures of Central Asian lore. Like the Roman Romulus he is an endonym: a people’s name and nature distilled retrojectively into a primordial founder. His deeds and those of his noble begs (lords) form the basis of the exclusive Oğuz worldview. They explain why the world is the way it is, especially the origins and natures of Turkic ethnic groups, and legitimise Oğuz’s descendants as inheritors of his legacy of world rule under one sovereign kağan. For this reason it is not surprising that Oğuz Kağan is a fantastically “mobile” figure in Central Asian myth- readily reappropriated and mixed with ancient, contemporary and local legends as the Turkic peoples migrated and rose to power as the Seljuks and Ottomans and filled the armies of the Chingisids and Timurids. and Tawariq-e Oğuz of Rashīd al-Dīn, which was used by Abu’l-Ḡāzi in the seventeenth century as well as many other Ottoman, Timurid and post-Timurid scholars to legitimise their secular and religious heads through descent from the figure of Oğuz. So your removal is plain example of vandalism. "No, before I checked the article I am not signed in to my account" should I count? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Beshogur (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, my previous attempts are aimed to fix the wrong interpretations, and then I saw you doing the same undo, and then I signed my account. What is the point of this about the article? What are you talking about? I made a request about this article to the Wikipedia team, hope they will fix it. You even don't finish the article that I mentioned, the article is about the truth, that is an article, it is a reliable source, what are you talking about? What is your point here? To blame me? Is this how the talk page work? Oziing (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oziing, if you don't know how Wikipedia really works, don't start by picking fights--it's rude and leads to blocks. When that block runs out, study what more experienced editors here are telling you. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Birth and Death edits
I noticed that there were no dates for either his birth or death. I thought they would be easy to find, but they certainly weren't. I'm including a link to the evidence that I found in case someone questions the factuality of these dates. The narrative of his birth and death dates, along with historical proof, are located in the 10th paragraph. http://koroglu.blogfa.com/post/23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobreski (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The article currently frames the subject as a legendary figure with different theories about who the legend may have been based on, so plainly stating that Khagan was born in 247 CE goes against that.
 * WP:BLOGS aren't reliable sources, but if the 247 estimate has been written about elsewhere, I'd say that belonged in the Oghuz Khagan with some context for who made this calculation. Belbury (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)