From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit dispute[edit]

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.[1] 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! [2] 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)
  1. ^ 隋書/卷84, 後魏太武滅沮渠氏,阿史那以五百家奔茹茹,世居金山,工於鐵作。
  2. ^ 周書/卷50: 茹茹主阿那瑰大怒,使人罵辱之曰:「爾是我鍛奴,何敢發是言也?」
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 Wikipedia: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.

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

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)

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.[1]

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


  1. ^ Atatürk'ün Söylev ve Demeçleri II, Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, 1989, p. 301, Turkish text: Demiryollarrını kullanacak olan Türk milleti menşeindeki ilk sanatkarlığına, demirciliğinin eserini tekrar göstermiş olmakla müftehir olacaktır. (in Turkish)
Please do not change the "blacksmith slave" part without discussing here! Nobody is denying the importance of metallurgy on Turkish culture. However, the citation above is irrelevant here.--CenkX (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We cannot use historians feel. Not only most of historians but also history fancier such as Atatürk accepted and mentioned to their blacksmithy. If this term came from Anagui's "鍛奴" comment, we must not deform it. But Zeki Velidi Togan mentioned another blacksmith slave and as to him they are also Turkic people. Maybe there are other sources of blacksmith slave. Anyway blacksmith slave is key word of ancient Turkic people. So please don't deform acroding to your own opinion. Takabeg (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Turk or Kok Turk[edit]

I changed all "Turks" to "Kok Turk"; instead I could change all "Kok Turk"s to "Turks"; they are just synonyms. Historical name is "Turk" but this can be confused with the modern meaning of the word; the article should be written with meticulous care to aviod confusion if "Turks" word is used, otherwise a confusion note is unnecassary. However, you cannot use Turk in one paragraph and Kok Turk in another paragraph, it would not be a good article! Kavas (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But can you use "Göktürks" as article title and then "Kök Türks" in the article itself? It should be one or the other.--Joostik (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a good point. It is better if the name used in the article were also the title of the article. Alternative names and spellings are given in the lead, and after that one term is used throughout for internal consistency. It is permissible to use synonyms for variety and readability, but not to change spellings. Göktürks gets 58,500 Ghits, while "Kök Türks" gets only 1,460. "Kök Türks" books - 48 - Göktürks books - 335. It is clear that Göktürks is the common term, and the one most used by scholars. That should be the term used in the article. SilkTork *YES! 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
They are simply Türks so "Kök Türks" hits only a few. --Shamans of Tengri 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Göktürk is not widely used, hence the best scholars in this field do not even call the First and Second Türk Qaghanate with this name (i.e. Golden, Beckwith, etc). Göktürk is not justified simply to distinguish from modern Turkish Turks. It appears once in the inscriptions, which are the basic source for how Türk rulers saw their empire. Golden suggest that it is largely related to "east" not sky or celestial, but of course this could be debated. In any case, the people called themselves Türk consistently. The evidence for Ashina as "blue" is weak, and in any case the whole of the Türk ethnic group or empire is not going to call themselves Blue Türks simply because the Ashina founding clan's name meant "blue." Nlight2 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Internal revolution[edit]

"Internal revolution" is properly referenced. It should be stay in the article. Please do not delete it.--CenkX (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view[edit]

  • I found CenkX deleted some important information and deformed the article. Especially I don't understand why you insist on using historians feel Maybe you support Sinor's theses. But please don't abuse Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Takabeg (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The map[edit]


The second map in section Civil war is not realistic. According to map most of South Siberia as well as Pacific Ocean coast was under the influence of Turks. Is there a source to back this claim ? If not, we may discuss delating it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Vol. 99. of History of Northern Dynasties,


俟斤=Muqan Qaghan defeated Hephthalite (嚈噠) in the west, made Qidan (契骨) run away in the east, moreover Kyrgyz (契骨) in the north and make subservient countries outside the Great Wall (塞外諸國). Its territories extended to 10,000 miles from the Sea of Liao (遼海) in the east to the West Sea (西海) in the west, to 5,600 miles from the northern part of the desert (沙漠) in the south to the North Sea (北海) in the north: all belong to it. It was a match for China and after defeated Northern Qi with Western Wei (precisely Northern Zhou that was the follower of Western Wei) and extended to Bing (並州).

Takabeg (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Please note that I have no objection about the southern and western territories. They are well documented. But I have doubts about the eastern part. There it seems only one source. But the details in history books produced in medieval and ancient times are not always reliable. Do we believe that the gods were fighting in the battle of Troy ? (Well it is written so) We should also use our logic. Turks were originally from Altai Mountains. They captured Ötüken app. 1500 km east, because the Ötüken forest was considered holy. But Pacific Ocean is about 6000 km. away and unlike west there was no attractive rewards (no Silk way). I think Turks’ presence or even influence along the Ocean is highly questionabe. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I question the boundary between the two khaghanates. It seems most part of present day Dzungaria was ruled by Western Turkic rather than Eastern Turkic khaganate. --Shamans of Tengri 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Zizhi Tongjian[edit]

  • Zizhi Tongjian's link doesn't mention about "Tujue's service as ironsmiths". Please check the link again.
  • Suishu doesn't mention about ironsmith services, only says, 'work in metal making' (工於鐵作).

These two points should be clarified before making citations. Thank you!--CenkX (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted sources and information again. The link that you deleted is Sima Guang, Zizhi Tongjian, Vol. 159. and it says that 突厥本西方小國,姓阿史那氏,世居金山之陽,為柔然鐵工. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:Then the information you gave was wrong, there was no mention of Tujue on Vol.123, as you said, it's vol.159. And there is nothing about "service", it simply says, "metal-work for Rouran". Please be precise.--CenkX (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

鐵工 means blacksmith, ironworker, ironwork. Takabeg (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted vol. 159 and related information, not Vol. 123. We use Vol. 123 for other information. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not OK. You're distorting information according your personal fictional views, those sources does not mention about them serving to Rouran.--CenkX (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Turks served as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

have served as their "blacksmith slaves" and ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

served as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

served as their "blacksmith slaves" and ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They served Jwen-jwen as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

submitted to them and settled as ironworkers. Takabeg (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In short many historians accept it and I've never edited by my personal opinion. I don't have any opinion :) I only translate and transfer information. But we can say this your edit was done by your personal view of point. Takabeg (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Need Cleanup[edit]

I just took a closer look to the article after years. I realized that last six months while a lot of useful information was discarded, a lot of unfounded information added. So I decided to add cleanup template.--CenkX (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Göktürk or Türk[edit]

Why is the name of this article Göktürk (or Köktürk as proposed) ? In both cases the word Gök (or Kök) is a noun used as an adjective in a adjective clause (i.e., Celestial Turk) . Usually, in official addresses of the historical states, the name of the state is presented with a lot of adjectives and titles. (Great, sempiternal, holy, honored etc.) But usually these titles don't appear in the article names of the encyclopedias. (These may be given in the text) Even if they appear in the name of the article in a very few cases, the adjective and the noun are not combined (Holy Roman Empire, Great Seljuk Empire etc.) So I think the name of this article should be moved to Turkic Empire or Turkic Khanate. A second choice may be Celestial Turk where the words are not combined. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the name of the article was driven by native Turks, and then it is tolerable as reflecting the native accepted historiographical views, but otherwise it strikingly stands out from every other article in the WP, where the ruling elite, people, and the political organizations are not piled up in a single cauldron. Ashina Turks were a ruling elite, and they had their own genealogical legends, historical references, background, ethnology, etc. For example, Ashina Turks had hostile relations with a number of Turkic people, who never accepted their supermacy, and in the end brought about their demise. Ashina Turks presided over numerous peoples in Eurasia, from primitive forest foot hunters to most developed irrigation agricultural people, and supervised the most advanced metalurgical production of the time. Their metalurgical legasy lasted into the 20th century, and was a base for the industrial development in the Asian part of the USSR. Politically, they led a number of Middle Age states, each defined by its own history and uniqueness. They also laid a foundation for the ruling concept that was far ahead of its time, making them desirable rulers invited to rule with their know-how in many lands with no Türks. The Göktürk article should address a wealth of information about a sliver of Turkic dynasty that played a magnificient role in the history of Eurasia, trace their propagation and their conflicts with other Turkic dynasties. The history of Turkic peoples is a completely different story, impacted, but not driven by Ashina Turks, and the political history is again a separate story, consisting of dozens individual stories with Göktürk involvement only at some short period. I suggest that there is a need to create a table of contents, as a separate discussion, like in any publication, and then be guided by it in the breakdown and naming of the articles. A separate issue is the absence of the native sources, only Göktürks in the WP is written entirely by outsiders with mostly skewed knowledge and objectives Barefact (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "kök" is definitely a title like "Great", "Heavenly", etc. The Osman Turkish people want to have the primary place among Turkic peoples, so they call themselves simply "Turks", and rename the real Türks (Kök Türks) "Göktürks". The term "Göktürk" itself is a Turkish corruption of Old Turkic/Old Uyghur "Kök Türk". The article should be Türks (kök) (or Türks (ancient people), Türks (blue), Türks (sky), etc.), kök is simply a term to disambiguate them from the ancient Turkmens. --Shamans of Tengri 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)



Turkic Khaganate (but including other Turkic khaganates/khanates/empires):


Kök Türk:

Takabeg (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Modern Mongolian alternative name[edit]

Modern Mongolian alternative name is needless. Mongols appeared in 7th century. Shiwei was not in the Mongolian Plateau. This alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"History of Mongolia" Information Box?[edit]

I was wondering if it is relevant to put, in the origins section, an information box 'History of Mongolia'. This article is about the history of Turks. We should put 'History of Turks' Information Box instead. Stokastik (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know precise rules on info box. I think this info box can be put here, because the mainland of this khaganate lay in modern Mongolia. {{Template:History of Kazakhstan}} can also be put. Takabeg (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Project China ?[edit]

I propose to delete the ProjectChina. This article has nothing to do with China. It is true that they were the neighbours of China. But they were also the neighbours of Sasanid Persia and Byzantine Empire. Are we going to include all neighbours? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a part of Project China because Turks were the ancestors of Chinese peoples and their kingdom was an important part of Chinese history. Many of Chinese peoples, such as the ethnic Uyghur, ethnic Uzbek, ethnic Qazaq, ethnic Sariq Uyghur, etc., regard Turks their sole ancestors (Turks were also the ancestor of non-Chinese Uzbeks, Qazaqs, etc in Central Asia, and that the reason why it's a part of Project Central Asia), and most other of them, such as ethnic Han and ethnic Mongol/Tuva, regard Turks one of their ancestors, due to several extensive cultural and lineage interactions since the Wu Hu era. -- (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt whether the Project Turkey is ok for this article, because the Seljuks didn't appear in the Asia Minor until 11th century, and it's not clear where exactly they came from. They say a language that is somewhat close to the language spoken by the Kok Turks, but with a quite weird pronunciation (e.g. they pronounce Beg as Bey). Project Turkey concerns more with Anatolia, Byzantine, and Seljuk-Ottoman Empires, less with the history of Turkic peoples. So it's definitely not a high-importance article of Project Turkey. -- (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So called "Iranian" titles of Göktürk leaders[edit]

Political system: Sadly I see that tried to delete text. I think we need more neutral information and two positions to avoid such deletions (NPOV). On the other hand it seems to be persian chauvinism which has to be removed due to out-dated and misleading, wrong information. --Tirgil34 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2012 (CET) --Cold Season (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Gokturks coin.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Gokturks coin.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gokturks coin.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong usage of German Citation[edit]

This sentence is based on wrong citation:"German Turkologist W.-E. Scharlipp writes that "a conspicuously large amount" of early Turkic titles are "in fact borrowings from Iranian", including "almost all of their titles"."[1]

Everybody who can speak German should comment this. Thanks! -- Xantana (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2012 (CET)

  1. ^ „(...) Über die Ethnogenese dieses Stammes ist viel gerätselt worden. Auffallend ist, dass viele zentrale Begriffe iranischen Ursprungs sind. Dies betrifft fast alle Titel (...). Einige Gelehrte wollen auch die Eigenbezeichnung türk auf einen iranischen Ursprung zurückführen und ihn mit dem Wort „Turan“, der persischen Bezeichnung für das Land jeneseits des Oxus, in Verbindung bringen.“ Wolfgang-Ekkehard Scharlipp in Die frühen Türken in Zentralasien, p. 18 --Cold Season (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

I am a lecturer in premodern Chinese history. When I was looking for this article it took me a while to find it because most of the materials I ask my students to read refer to this group as a political unit known as the First (and later the Second) Turkish or Turkic Empires. I wonder whether it would be worth changing the name of the article to make it easier to search for? Naomi Standen (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Khaganate and Qaghanate[edit]

The problem with articles like this is they accumulate multiple transcriptions for terms. So we have ended up with the term Qaghan in the same article with Khaganate. The spelling khagan and khaqan are quite late and come after Islamization and the use of the Arabic script. The early Turkic spelling should be qaghan and qaghanate formed with the English derivative ending on the title of the ruler of these imperial states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlight2 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) forgot my Nlight2 (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC) as usual!

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Göktürks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Türks (kök)Göktürks – Just per WPMOS, the present name looks like a disambig, but those are followed, in English, at the English Wikipedia, with a descriptor in parenthesis that describes for the layperson the topic of the article. "Türks (kök)" does not, nobody uses "kök" in English, whereas the commonly used scholarly term "Göktürks" as a unit is quite common. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support some move. I leave it to the experts to decide a title, but I agree with the nominator that this one stinks. Red Slash 03:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for procedural reasons (the article was recently unilaterally moved with no discussion or comprehensible explanation), per WP:UE (the current title is meaningless in English), per WP:UCN (use common names), and per WP:DAB (Wikipedia's rules on parenthetical disambiguators). The article has been stable at some form of Göktürks since 2002; let those who favour another title justify it. —  AjaxSmack  18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article moved without any negotiation — Maurice07 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

German works on Old Turkic inscriptions[edit]

Der türkische Text der bilinguelen Inschriften der Mongolei: Erstes Heft: Die Schrift ist eine ... (1900)

Inscriptions de l'Orkhon déchiffrées (1896)

Über die köktürkische Inschrift auf der Südseite des Kül Takin-Denkmals (1896)

Wörterverzeichniss zu den Inscriptions de l'Iénisseï (1892)

Rajmaan (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish work

Orhun abideleri

History of Turks

History of Ottomans

Alleged etymology[edit]

GOKTURKS is a huge mistranslation and mistyping of KOTRAGS over the centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Göktürks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)