Talk:Göktürks

message: This article contains a reference to the Silk Road Foundation. It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has nothing to do with this talk page section. 
The Silk Road Journal in question is focuses on Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by mostly Russian and Chinese researchers. There is only one editor of the journal, an American man named Daniel Waugh, who has candidly stated that the journal has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals. 
This is pretty much the definition of a predatory publisher. 
And predictably, this source contains the kind of erroneous information that one would expect from these kinds of standards. I would just like to note that this source does not even say that this mask is of Göktürk origin or from the Türkic empire. Quite the opposite, it quotes a researcher who says that it is found in association with items (namely, a cup) obtained by trade with the Türkic empire:
Yet, as we would expect from a low quality source, this is unlikely, because this source also got the dating of the mask awfully wrong. This mask is not from the 5th-6th centuries CE. Every source I have seen places the dates of the golden masks to within the 1-5th centuries CE. From The Himalayan gold masks from a Eurasian perspective, Tao Tong and Linhui Li (2016):
On the ruby-inlade Poma mask that this section concerns:
Thus this mask actually pre-dates the First Türkic Khaganate, possibly by hundreds of years, so whatever the Silk Road Journal meant by "Turkic empire", this mask has nothing to do with Göktürks, and since no source actually claims it is a Gökturk, much less a Göktürk ruler,  it should not be placed here. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poma mask 

message: Hello, I am 38 years old Finnish researcher on Turkish history specifically on ancient Turkish roots. I have learned to read Orkun scripts from books of Mehmet Kömen, Turgay Tüfekçioğlu, Kazım Mirşan and ofcourse from my study at Istanbul University. since I already knew Turkish from my education at Istanbul University learning to recognise modern meaning of the tamgas in Orkun was easier for me. To get to the point; The name of "Göktürk" is wrong and its real name also is not "Kök" either. The real name is "Ökük Türük" meaning: "Ök"= Creator/Heavenly Sky, "Ük" Creator/holy. For "Türük" we dont even have to go back that far because in nowadays Turkish both words are still being used. "Tür" means "Race" (nowadays Turkish still same word) and "Ük" as again means "Holy/Creator". So if you put this all together you get "Ökük Türük". Meaning the "Holy Race (which is descent) of the Heavenly Sky/Creator". The misreading is "Gök" from "Kök", yes. But "Kök" itself is also a misreading. Because in the Orkun inscription its says [𐰜𐰇𐰚 : 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜] from right to left [𐰜] means "Ök", [𐰇] means "Ü" and [𐰚] means "K". So its not possible for it to start with a "K" and to end with a "Ök". This is a false reading done by the famous Turkish historian "Talat Tekin". However if we look at his Orkun translations of the word "Ötüken" [𐰇𐱅𐰜𐰤:𐰖𐰃𐱁] we can see from right to left he tranated the [𐰜] as "ÜK". While in his translation of "Köktürk" he translates this as just "K"? There are a total of 28+ translations of Talat Tekin where he translates this as "ÜK" to a counter of only 3 translations with this false "K". To get things straight there are 2 K's in old Turkish. [𐰜]=ÖK/ÜK, [𐰚]=k. So I want to suggest we should change the name of the page from the false misreading of a misreading "Göktürk" to its original name like in the Orkun texts "Ökük Türük". HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an interesting point, however I would like to point out that the readings of many Turkic letters are generally pretty inconsistent and the letter 𐰜 can mean not just ök and ük, but also kö, kü, and k. 2601:47:0:FBF0:E155:A4BE:9097:D1C6 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not true, it would only mean ÖK or ÜK. If it would also mean K then there's 2 letters written differently but with the same sound. I Have the whole Evolution from Tamga to letter of the "ÖK" tamga. ÖK meant creator. Even today we can see traces of this, in Turkish to people who have no mother we call them "Öksüz' meaning "without ök" without a creator. I you want you should message me from instagram @elturcos27 I can prove everything to you. The only correct way to read Orkun is through the translations of Kazım Mirşan. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: And to add one more thing, "kök türk" has no meaning. That just means "roots turk??" Ökük however is also very similar if not exactly the same meaning as the etymology of "Turk". "TÜR ÜK" HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake name "Gök/Köktürk" real name "Ökük Türük"