Jump to content

Talk:Haji Bektash Veli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.6.93.36 (talk) at 21:33, 3 June 2012 (→Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Hajji Bektash Wali is not Persian (Farsi),he is an Iranian Turkmen!

did you ever heard an ethnic iranian name like bektash? bek means strong, tash means rock (like in tashkent) in turkic languages. so his name means strong rock in turkish. its not important whether he was persian, or turk, or japanese or something else. though i red the comments and saw some persian ultra-nationalists trying to define azerbaijani and turkish peoples' ancestry. i want to ask them what would you gain even if all the things you wrote are true? what if azerbaijani people actually grandsons of persians and people of turkey are greeks' whom accidentally started to speak language of a few nomadic turkmens wandering around? what would change those things on the face of old mother earth? do you really think those "facts" would change the way those peoples see themselves? do you expect them to embrace their ancestor's culture and suddenly switch to their language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.85.232 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And did you know that turkish has many loanword of the Iranian language (Kurmanji, Kirmanjiki, Luri, Gilaki, Farsi, beluchi, tajiki etc..?

Vandalism

To whom that keeps changing Haci Bektasi Veli's origins to Persian: Even in the lone reference that is given "encyclopedia Iranica" it is not said that he is Persian, Haci Bektasi veli was from the Turkmen nomadic tribes of Khorasan. Today Khorasan lies inside the country of Iran, but that does not make everybody born there Persian. His name, Bektash, is Turkish, and he always lived and preached among Turkmen people.--Borek-corek 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the Encyclopaedia Iranica - which is an authoritative source - makes clear that he was Persian:
"... according to the Velāyet-Nāme, Hāji Bektāŝ was born in Nishāpur. [...] it is indeed highly probable that [...] his origins were Iranian ..." Prof. H.Algar in Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Khorāsanian Sufī Hāji Bektāŝ", v, p. 117, Online Edition, (LINK)
Tājik 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite incorrect, there is no precise information even in the above-mentioned Encyclopaedia Iranica. Highly probable information cannot be an evidence by alone. To think vice versa would be either an illogical or a persian chauvinistic style of thinking.
85.96.215.251 02:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're wrong, but would you be able to provide a reliable source that says he was Turkish? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moment, moment, I never wrote that he was Turkish. I wrote that he was Khorasan origined. And this is what Encyclopaedia Iranica states too. High probability cannot be an evidence. Therefore we had better note "of Khorasan origin". Comments?
85.96.215.251 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are correct. :) Well, that's good enough for me. I had thought that the source said he was Persian. —Khoikhoi 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, Tajik acts like a fanatic Persian nationalist rather than a scientific based researcher.
85.99.95.67 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly probable that Tajik is distorting the facts. Let me explain how. The below given text is the full paragraph where he gets his information:
"Again according to the Vilayet-Name (p.1), Haji Bektash was born in Nishapur. There is no independent confirmation of this, and a general tendency to describe a whole range of sacred personages - particularly those with Malamati features - as Horasan erleri (the saints of Khorasan) can be discerned in Turkish hagiographical works of the period (see Köprülü, 1338/1919-20, p.295). It is nonetheless highly probable that Haji Bektash did indeed form part of the westward migration that was occasioned by the Mongol invasion of Khorasan and that his origins were therefore Iranian."
So, let's get what it means actually: According to Vilayet-Name he was born in Nishapur. But it is not certain, and related Turkish hagiography of the period has always a tendency to relate those sacred people to Khorasan. But it's highly probable that after the Mongol invasion he took part in the westward migration, therefore he could be Iranian. That is to say, he quite probably migrated westward from Iran after the Mongol invasion. He doesn't mean any ethnic identity, he only means the Iranian land. He can be of any ethnic origin, Turk, Arab, Persian etc...
Let's come to what Tajik did concerning this text. He took only a small portion of it, namely, "... according to the Velāyet-Nāme, Hāji Bektāŝ was born in Nishāpur. [...] it is indeed highly probable that [...] his origins were Iranian ...". So he wanted to imply "it is highly probable that his origins were Iranian", that is to say, he wanted to give the reader the impression as if the author was refering to the ethnic identity of Hajji Bektash.
So, under these circumstances, Hajji Bektash's ethnic origin is still uncertain and the best thing to do is to revert the article to the previous one. Any comments welcome!
85.99.95.67 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly why the Wikipedia article says Haji Baktash "was a mystic, humanist and philosopher from Khorasan, most likely of Persian origin". Your POV attacks on this article (including your POV edits about him being "Anatolian" and not "Khrassani", and your vandalism of deleting the Iranica-source) are nothing new in here. It's not the first time that some Turkish nationalists are trying to vandalize and falsefy Wikipedia. So I guess POV-attacks on Wikipedia articles have become some new kind of "national sport" among Turkish nationalists. You should know that - by now - Wikipedians have gained some experience in dealing with such kinds of POV-attacks. BTW: the German Wikipedia gives also another source for his alleged Persian heritage: Köprülü, "Hacı Bektaş Veli", f. 295, 1920 Tājik 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you should give example texts from Köprülü's sources. Because it is certain that, as a reliable fanatic Persian nationalist, you distorted the meaning of the text in Enc. Iranica. And my change was absolutely conforming the text in Enc. Iranica. And for me, this is real vandalism.
85.99.95.67 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's well understood that, Wikipedia is NOT a scientific based reference anymore.
85.99.95.67 11:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Boy, you've just posted an extract from Iranica. And Iranica clearly says that it is indeed highly probable that his origin was Iranian (in contrast to Turkic or Arabic). And then, click on Persian people and read about the deffinition of the word "Persian". And now stop vandalizing the article and let people work who know what they are talking about. EOD. PS: Wikipedia may not be a "scientific source" for some pan-turkic wet-dreams ... but that's fine with us. You better look for your own "scientific sources". Try Polat Kaya *rofl* Tājik 11:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not your boy. You can even harshly criticize, but you cannot humiliate. If you do work for Wikipedia, you have to comply with the rules. As for the text, I recommend you to read it twice, thrice. It precisely mentions about the land, about the region, NOT about the ethnic identity. Even a layman can understand it when he reads it carefully.
85.99.95.67 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I had the chance to skim lots of articles concerning the islamic personages of those areas of old times. Everyone, nearly everyone is claimed Persian. And in the most of these articles I see your signature. I won't be surprised if I will soon read articles of Freddie Mercury and Michael Jackson claiming that they are Persian origined.
85.99.95.67 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use your brain, boy: why should the author first call him "Khorassanian" and in the next sentence "Iranian"?! Besides that, you are totally confusing the concept of modern "Napoleonic states" and "citizenship" with what the author means in Iranica while talking about a person who lived roughly 500-600 years before the French revolution! When Iranica says "Iranian", then it is a clear reference to the ethnic background of Haji Bektash (in contrast to "Turkic", "Mongol", or "Arabic", terms that are constantly used in Iranica in regard of ethnic origins). Stop accusing others because of your own biased world-view. Haji Baktash's homeland was Khorassan ("Iran" did not exist back then!) and his ethnic background was Iranian (in contrast to Turk or Arab). And since in western literature Iranian scholars are generally known as "Persians" (see Avicenna or Biruni, who were ethnic Khwarizmians but throughout history known as "Persians", because "Persian" is a general term applied to Persian-speaking Iranian peoples), Haji Bektash, too, was a MOST LIKELY "Persian". EOD! Tājik 12:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite everything, I'm trying to keep calm and warning you once more not to call me BOY anymore. If you are an adult you should show the minimum respect to the ones you address. Once again I'm saying, you can harshly criticize, say nationalist, chauvinist, etc. But no humiliation!
As for the text once again, both Khorasan and Iran are regions. They don't refer to any ethnic identitities. And the meaning of the text is quite certain if you see the text as a whole. "According to a source he was born in Nishapur, but this is not for sure. However, it is quite possible that he migrated westwards from Iran after the Mongol invasion". This is the meaning of the text. The quite probability that he took part in this migration proves that he lived in Iran, does not prove that he was Persian. And if your eyes are so blinded that you can't see this simple and naked meaning, then I have the right to say that you're conditioned or you're a fanatic persian nationalist.
I'm sorry to say this but it's a pity for Wikipedia to choose to work with such conditioned, nationalistic and non-scientific based people.
85.99.95.67 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for you that - for some reason - you seem not to be able to understand encyclopaedic texts and expressions. Let me show you another example from the Encyclopaedia of Islam which uses the word "Iranian" CLEARLY in an ethnic sense, and not - as you claim - in a "regional" sense:
  • "... Culturally, the constituting of the Saljuq empire marked a further step in the dethronement of Arabic from being the sole lingua franca of educated and polite society in the Middle East. Coming as they did through a Transoxania which was still substantially Iranian and into Persia proper, the Saljuqs — with no high-level Turkish cultural or literary heritage of their own — took over that of Persia, so that the Persian language became that of administration and culture in their lands of Persia and Anatolia. ..."
Every intelligent person would understand in here, that "Iranian" is used as an ethno-cultural term (evidently as a contrast to "Turkic"), and that it is used as synonym with the word "Persian" (which is also very evident from the text).
Tājik 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tajik!, Iranian is also a regional word, marking the people of Iran, or the people living in Iran. And here, beyond any doubt, this word is used in this meaning. If you take the text as a whole and read the text thoroughly you will understand this. I repeat my above-mentioned sentence, "the quite probability that he took part in this westward migration proves that he lived in Iran, does not prove that he was Persian". This is quite logical. And this is what the author precisely meant. You don't need to be an expert to understand this. But, however, whatever I will say, you will not accept, because you're conditioned, the existence of two words "Persian origined" in the article is much more important for you than being scientific-based. Nevertheless, I cannot play tug-of-war with you and I won't change the article even though it is totally illogical. So, you can be easy and comfortable.
85.99.95.67 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah ... I am pretty sure that you have some weird explanation for this extract, too:
  • "... [as consequence of Oghuz Turkic domination in the Caucasus, beginning the 12th century] the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population. The remains of the old Iranian dialects are found in small groups in Karadja-dagh, near Sahand, near Djulfa, etc ..." (V. Minorsky, "Ādharbāyjān", in Encyclopædia of Islam).
Now, what's the author trying to say?! That the population of Azerbaijan is still Iranian?! Or that they were "Iranian" and became "Non-Iranians" later?! And why is "Iranian" always used as contrast to "Turkic"?! Does that mean that Turkic-speaking people in Iran are not "Iranians"?! Or were not "Iranians"?! Or does it simply mean what I am trying to explain to you from the beginning on: that "Iranian" and "Turkic" are ethno-cultural terms used in these articles! You tell me! Tājik 15:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tajik!, I think you didn't read what I wrote to you. There is a scientific term 'Iranian' that corresponds to that of 'Turkic', yes. But Iranian also means a person who lives in Iran, hence the people living in Iran, and they can be of any ethnic origin. And here, in this text, this word is used precisely in this meaning. If you take the text as a whole and read it thoroughly you will understand it. I re-repeat my above-mentioned sentence, "the quite probability that he took part in this westward migration proves that he lived in Iran, does not prove that he was Persian". So, the word "Iranian" is used in the text to show that his original location was Iran. Vice versa would be ridiculous. This is quite logical. And this is what the author precisely meant. You don't need to be an expert to understand this. I think this repetition will be enough.
85.99.95.67 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very easy example for you! Let's forget the probability of his westward migration and let's assume that his westward migration is a fact. Now:
1. Does the fact that he took part in this westward migration prove that he originally lived in Iran? Of course yes, this is the only explanation.
2. Does the fact that he took part in this westward migration prove that he was originally Persian? NO! Of course not, there is no relationship.
So, in this text, the term "Iranian" is used to show his original location, not his ethnic identity. This is that easy. I think it's gonna be helpful for you to comprehend the matter.
85.99.95.67 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You totally miss the point. "Iranian" is a general term applied to certain peoples in the Middle East who speak related languages (I am sure you have NEVER heared of it. So please, take a look at this article: Iranian peoples and educate yourself). When the author says that Haji Bektash was of "Iranian origin", then he clearmy means the ethno-linguistic family of Iranians, not jus a "political entity called Iran" (which did NOT exist at that time). There were also "Iranians" who were born and lived OUTSEIDE of the histirc Persia, and there were many Non-Iranians who were born and lived IN historical Persia. The Ghaznavids, for example, were from Iran - yet, they are called "Turkish" and not "Iranian". And in this case, "Turkish" does NOT refer to modern-day "Turkey", as you probably think, but to an ethno-linguistic family of peoples.
The author calls Haji Bektash an "Iranian", because he was of ETHNIC IRANIC ORIGIN, that means that he was NOT a Turk and that he was NOT an Arab. And since Western sources usually use the term "Persian" instead of "Iranian", it is totally correct to call him "Persian" in here.
Only the fact that you confuse the modern, political nation Iran with a historical term that has absoluetly NOTHING to do with the modern Islamic Republic, totally disqualifies you from this thread.
"Iranian" is clearly an ethno-linguistic term, applied to Haji Bektash's NON-TURKIC and NON-ARABIC origin. If he were Turkic (like the Ghaznavids or Seljuqs), the author would have called him "Turkic" (as it's the case with Yunus Emre or Mir Ali Sher Nava'i), and if he were Arab, the author would have called him "Arab" (as it's the case with al-Kindi or Prophet Muhammad). "Turkic" and "Arabic" are also general terms applied to a bunch of different, but related peoples. That's also the case with "Iranian", and since - 1000 years ago - ALL Iranians were called "Persians" (compare al-Biruni or al-Khwarizmi), it is TOTALLY CORRECT to call Haji Bektash "Persian"!
Tājik 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure that I know Iranian languages. I'm a linguist. But one thing you do NOT want to understand is that Iranian also means "a person living in Iran", "a person of Iranian land". And in this text, the word "Iranian" is used in this meaning. Beyond any doubt ! If you read my previous paragraphs more carefully, you can understand the reason. I don't wanna repeat it once more. And additionally, give up this prejudice and try to be more scientific based.
85.100.183.190 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "Iranian" were a reference to his homseland, then the authors would not have written "Iranian origin". While Haji Bektash is considered a "Khorassanian saint" (=FROM Khorasan, since there is no such thing as "ethnic Khorasanians"), his ORIGIN was Iranian (--> Iranian peoples). If you do not want to accept this simple, but very clear fact, then it's your own problem, not that of Wikipedia. Tājik 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion started to be very funny Tajik! Khorasan is in Iran, and of course a Khorasannian is an Iranian. There is no need to detail the place in specific, and the author did not feel the necessity to detail it of course. The land "Iran" was enough for the author in order to give his original land. Quite natural. There's nothing wrong with it.
Tajik! You're extremely prejudiced and conditioned. You got stuck into one word and you don't wanna see the sentence. You don't even take a look at the paragraph. You're only sticking to one word and you're trying to shape this word as you want it to happen. The truth is very simple and naked, but you do NOT want to see it. An open minded and scientific based person would understand what I explained in a couple of minutes. Forget your persian nationalistic agenda and try to be more unbiased.
Additionally, you had better give up hiding behind Wikipedia whenever you feel in a difficult situation. Wikipedia is not under your monopoly. Everyone here is working for Wikipedia, not only you!
85.100.183.190 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Khorassan" is INDEPENDENT from "Iran". In fact, the most important cities of Khorasan are OUTSIDE of present-day Iran, such as Balkh, Samarqand, Bukhara, Ghazni, or Herat. You see, the problem with you is that you have no idea what you are talking about! I mean, you do not even know the meaning of "Khorasan" ... Tājik 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! Now, you started to play with words. An important part of Khorasan is in modern day Iran for the moment. And the greater Khorasan, that you mentioned, was a part of historical Iran at those times. And, Nishapur is still a city in Iran too. So, as you can see, it won't make any difference.
This way of thinking cannot take you anywhere Tajik! You forgot to see the general view, and now you're busying yourself with the details. With this kind of mentality, you can only deceive yourself, not the other people. You can't see, or maybe feign not to see, very simple and clear facts, and you're bothering both yourself and me with nonsense details and trifles.
So, what you should do is to forget your prejudices and to learn to see the facts with an open and healthy mind.
85.100.183.190 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I can't believe this, Tajjik should really be reported to WIKIPEDIA Admin.

1. He tried to call Babur a Persian, I had to practically battle, go and gather the sources to prove the known fact that Babur was a Turk, this is internationally accepted, forget that Babur called himself a Turk!

2. He attempts to change anything attributed to Turks to another nation, there either Mongol or Persian or this or that when we all know these people were Turks and wrote of themsevles as Turks.

3. We had the same debate over Kizilbash, were he wouldn't accept it was started by Turks.

Now "Hunkar Haci Bektashi" was a Turk, he was a member of the "Yasavi" school, this was a primarilly Turkic Sufi school spreading Islam among Turks, the language used in their services and teaching were Turkish. To claim that Bektashi was a Persian just because he was from "Khorasan" is ridiculous! the only source used is that he was from Khorosan so "probobly" Persian. He could just have possibly been a Turk an Arab, an Indian, a Chinease or from the other side of the world under such reasoning.

His works and works attributed to him are written in Turkish, he's very famous among Turks and spread the Yasavi philosophies to Anatolia and the Balkans. He does not have a legacy among Persians.

Haci Bektashi was an "EREN", where are the Persian Eren's?

Have you read the "Vellayatname"? he writes that he is from "Turkistan, Nishapur", there is an extract of the Yasavi school sending him as an envoy to Anatolia to spread Islamic Yasavi mysticism to the newly migrated Turks.

If you want we can translate this work for you.

Please stop this VANDALISM

--Johnstevens5 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I have never claimed that Babur was a Persian as you claim. In fact, lying non-stop seems to be your mission on Wikipedia.
  2. People who were Persian will be described as Persians in Wikipedia. And people who were Mongols will be described as Mongols in Wikipedia, the same way Turks are described as Turks. The problem with you is that you call EVERYONE - from Adam to Bill Clinton ethnic Turks.
  3. The Kizilbash were not an ethnic group and they were not started by Turks. In fact, the origin of the Kizilbash is totally unknown(what does shii mean... kizilbash is the turkic term instead of arabic shii, during a war between Ali and Muawiyah, soliers of Ali wore red caps, thats how worship of Ali started...) . If you take a look at the article Kizilbash, you will see that one of the most important researchers of Kizilbash and Bektashi history, Turkish scholar A. Gölpinarli, connected the Kizilbash to the Khurramits.
  4. Haji Bektash Wali, known as a Horassan erleri in Turkish, was DEFFINITLY NO TURK. You are deleting authoritative sources ONCE again, and you base your entire argument on a hillarious claim that "only Turks followed the Yasevi-Tariqa" ...
  5. The article does not say that he "was certainly Persian", but that he was most likely Persian, because he was from Nishapur - back then a Persian city, just like today.
Tājik 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Do you even know what the "Yasavi" school was? who founded it? what it's aim was? what language it used in its philosophies?

If you did you wouldn't make such audacious claims.

The article doesn't say he "was" Persian, its stating he "might" have been, well one could argue then he "might" have been a Turk or of any other nation.

Encyclopedia's are not places for "half-truths" and guess work, we can only include data which can be backed up with hard sources.

I will get a translation of the "Velayatname" and post what he wrote.

--Johnstevens5 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even known whether he was a Yassavi-Sufi or not. There are other, quite reliable sources (for example early chronicles of the Mowlavi-Sufis) linking his name to the Qalandari-Sufis of Khorasan and to Bābā Rassul-Allāh Eliyās Khorāsānī. This information is supported by Aflākī (1953, I, p. 381-82), one of the most important scholars on Bektashi history, by Elvân Çelebi (ed., 1984, p. 1) and by Erünsal/Ocak, ("Hacı Bektaş Veli", English translation, Introduction, xli-xlv).
You entire argument is based on a weak assumption ... on a legend!
Tājik 09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


really funny, haji bektash veli is now persian. i coudn't stop laughing. wikipedia is discrediting itself. the whole world know the origins of bektashi veli and the foundation of the bektashi order. you want the world to believe that a persian goes to the turks to persuade them to believe in a kind of religion, a sect that is not even practiced in persia. don't be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.222.38 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Vandlism but Personal attacks

According to above discussion, I just can see a bad talk I don't to say anything more. Look at this sentence :To my mind, Tajik acts like a fanatic Persian nationalist rather than a scientific based researcher.85.99.95.67 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) this text from the above by an anonymous(!!!or popsu..!!!) suffices for my claim. I believe the above discussion has personal attacks, the thing I hate very much. It is obvious that Iranica is an authoritative source. Please, see Wikipedia policies and use just reliable published sources.

Secondly I should say that Zaparojdik had just deleted Iranica sources in addition the link of article to Persian. wikipedia[1]. I should tell that they are Certainly vandlism. Especially the second one that doesn't need any discussion.

And according to "Encyclopedia Iranica", he comes from Neyshabur(=Nishapur). the previous sentence is highly probable. So he must be in "People from Neyshabur" Category. At last I must tell that calling "Encyclopedia Iranica" nationalist looks to be another "personal attack". So, don't try to hide the facts by removing authoritative sources.

Stop vandlism and personal attacks.

Soroush ☺talk | ☼Contributions 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

google hits

This is English wikipedia and Hacı Bektaş doesn't contain English characters. You can redirect Hacı Bektaş to this Page. The name which is used for people's name in English is written with English characters. If the name comes Hacı Bektaş here, the name of Japanese People should come in Japanese in the article name. Goolgle hits isn't important here.--Soroush83 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacı Bektaş contains English characters, it contains non English characters as well, but that is not important. See List of French people, or List of Czechs for instance. Please revert. Google hits are not unimportant. Google hits was used by the previous reverter. Also, Japanese people are not so relevant here, Turks use (a modified) Latin alphabet. denizTC 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish google hits don not matter here, this is the English Wikipedia, Hajji Bektash Wali is the proper and common name in English used by Britannica [2] and all the other major Encyclopedias, and various academic books and journals. --Mardavich 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still it is 547 vs 154 denizTC 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is English Wikipedia!

I moved page back to its original English names. Here is the English Wikipedia. Please do not use Turkish scripts and names in the title page.--behmod talk 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to use English transliterations of Persian name either denizTC 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do, because his common name in English is Hajji Bektash Wali. Look him up in any other English encyclopedia out there. --Mardavich 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind so much, but it is just that you mentioned google hits, and I gave you google hits. I think the common English name is Haci Bektaş Veli, for instance b/c 547 > 154. By the way, I feel like this is similar to Rumi being redirected to Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, even though the former one is the more common one. denizTC 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, Rumi is not his full name. Full names are more appropriate for biography titles. --Mardavich 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton is not the full name, right, neither is George W. Bush, how about Bono? I am new, but not that new, I have seen some discussions. Good night denizTC 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadalism

Guys, I undid some vandalism by an anon that seemed to have gone under the radar (removal of sourced information). I reinserted the sourced information. Keep an eye out for more vandalism, thanks.Azerbaijani 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The source was misused. I removed some OR. DenizTC 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bektashi or Hajji Bektash Wali

I can't help feeling a little disappointed the page doesnot deal more with Hajji Bektash Wali, rather than wandering to a discussion of the Bektashi. i.e. Hajji Bektash Wali was long dead before the suppression of the order. Yes, have a section on the Bektashi, but the discssion should be on that main article, while this page could be beefed up with more solid infoabout the man himself, surely?Harrypotter 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on his ethnic roots and too little on his legacy

Why is there so much emphasis on his Iranian roots and little on his legacy?

His influence and legacy is everywhere to be felt and found in Ottoman and even modern day Turkish culture and history. His greatest influence were in Anatolia and Balkans through Ottomans. Bektaşizm was the code of the Jannisaries. What's up with the nationalism and racism? So much so, alien concepts to philosophers like Bektaşi and Mevlana who thought of all humans as one.--Doktor Gonzo 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Bektash Wali is ethnically,culturally,racially and genetically Persian not Turk

Haci Bektas Veli was not a Tat ( the old Turks called iranian people "tat". Tat means in old turkic dark or ugly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.14.34 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) It is hard to understand how the above comment relates to the world we live in. These words, Persian and Turkic are imprecise words which acts as flexible signs with in a far from rational sign-system called the English language.Harrypotter (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RV

I have reverted the unexplained deletion of sources by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


About Ethnicity

Hajji Bektash Wali wrote his Makalat in Turkish.Also Azeris and Turks are Turkic and "O" isn't the Turkic haplotype.Kyrgyzes and Uyghurs have high r1a and r1b frequencies like Turkey.Aren't they Turkic?Also I've had a DNA test from iGENEA and I hav haplogroup N from Y-DNA(like Yakuts) Also who said Turkish ppl don't have Central Asian culture?We speak TURKISH,not persian or greek!And our music,food,drinks are dominantly central asian.Like "saz" instrument,"ayran" drink etc. We TURKS are TURKIC and we proud of it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.100.11 (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Mevlana, Haci Bektash is also claimed as Persian, many people think they are Persians because they wrote or spoke Persian which was normal during the era they lived in, many sources are based on this, both men were born in the same area which was inhabited by Turkish tribes at the time, does the Seljuq Empire or sultanate ring a bell? Mevlana his familiy owns a website about this issue on the net, if you wish a source you should contact them at www.mevlana.net Redman19 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) This article is about Hajji Baktash, not about Rumi (whose origins and biography are undisputed in scholarly literature, no matter what his alleged descendants today claim). 2) All of you need to read WP:SOURCES (www.mevlana.net is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards; besides that, it contains obvious mistakes, such as the claim that Balkh was inhabited by Turkish tribes 800 years ago, which is against all historical sources available). 3) Hajji Baktash neither wrote in Persian nor in Turkish, but exclusively in Arabic. Later Turkish poems attributed to him are fabrications. His ethnic origins are totally unknown, but the oldest (and most reliable sources) suggest an Iranian background. That includes his heterodox beliefs, the fact that he was born in Khorasan, that he did not have any tribal affiliations, etc. Tajik (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mate Haci Bektas knew Persian and Turkish, we all know he wrote in Arabic, but just tell me one thing, whats the meaning of Bektas in Persian since Bektas is a Turkish word, Haci Bektas Veli is a Turkmen from Khorasan just like Rumi, wikipedia is overrun by Persian propaganda, you really want me to believe that the word Bektas has a meaning in Persian? can you explain me why there are so many Turks in Iran and present day Afghanistan? did all those Turks fall out of the sky somehow? its commonly known that Iran wants to get rid of their Turks, thats no secret, this Persian facism has spread to the internet somehow, there are many Turkmens in Iran but still you are trying to hide this by claiming that Khorasan never had a Turkish population, shame on you.

http://flagspot.net/flags/ir_khora.html <<< this is the flag of Khorasan Turks and Iranian Turkmen, but no panic Im not gonna edit these article or other articles, its a waste of time. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works with reliable sources.. Bektash has two different meanings one Persian and one Turkish. The Turkish one has been a loanword in Persian for a long time. Also Bektash seems to be a title not the formal name. Just like Hajji and Wali are part of the title. For example "Effendi" is a Greek title which has entered Turkish or "Aqa" or "Khan" are Altaic titles which have entered Persian. Rumi was actually born in Wakhsh (Tajikistan) and there is no Turkomans there.. Haji Bektash was probably from Neyshapur. Rumi's ethnicity is more clear (he used Persian for every day setting including sermons and lectures taken down by his students). His on admits little fluency in Turkish and Greek. Haci Bektash on the other hand, there is absolutely no clear info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.114.129 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


apart from all your expaination about his ethnicity. do you really believe a persian goes to the turks and teaches them a religious sect that even persians don't know? alevism is a religion that is primarily persued by turks. if you really want to know something about haji bektashi veli you don't go to persia, you don't study persian literature, you look up in turkish literature, you go to turkey, where bektashi veli is buried. go to the federation of alevis in turkey.

this is getting ridiculous here. all the arguments being bektashi veli a persian are a joke. this is not science here. you may fool some uneducated people but people who know this matter will ignore wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.222.38 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hajji Bektash Wali → Haji Bektash Veli – per WP:COMMONNAME

Takabeg (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnicity redux

He appears to have been born in Iran/Persia but besides the murkiness of his actual history, we have a reliable source that says he was born to a Turkish family. Our policy WP:VERIFY makes it clear that verifiability is what we are looking for, and whether we think there were Turks in this area centuries ago or not is irrelevant. I certainly have no idea and frankly don't care what he was, only that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies and don't get bogged down in nationalism. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the reliable, contemporary sources refer to him as Persian (he did, after all, speak in Persian, write in Persian, and was born in Persia!). Some Turkish nationalists have retrospectively claimed he had some Turkic connections, but this has never been proven (you keep conflating "Turkish" with Turkic, by the way). If you don't care, why are you edit-warring to insert information that contradicts the well sourced info that is already in the article? Dohezarsersdah (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reliable source saying he was born into a Turkish family, please don't remove it again. Go to WP:RSN if you don't think it's a reliable source, but now that you have been blocked once it would be imprudent to replace it without consensus. If RSN says it's not a reliable source, I certainly wouldn't want to use it. I'd suggest we drop 'Persian' but I'm not going to get into an edit war over that. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reliable source saying he was Persian, please don't remove it again. Go to WP:RSN if you don't think it's a reliable source, but if you don't want to be blocked, it would be wise not to replace it without consensus. If RSN says it's not a reliable source, I certainly wouldn't want to use it. I'd suggest we drop 'Turkish family' but I'm not going to get into an edit war over that. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. I never said we didn't have reliable sources saying he was Persian, I just think it's best to avoid nationalistic wars over this. However, I do object to your changing the bit about him being born into a Turkish family into 'his family was Turkic' because that is simply not what the source says, it says "Turkish family". You can change it or I will. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
It's an anachronism. "Turkish" today means, of the Republic of Turkey. The Republic of Turkey did not exist then. Aside from the fact that the source is obviously wrong, since there were no "prominent" Turkmen in the areas around Nishapur in the 13th century. The Turkmen were, by definition, nomads, while Haji Bektash was apparently learned. Where does the author get her information? I think she's just repeating what must be an modern Turkish tradition. How many sources contradicting your one will I need to find before you give up on the dream of him being a Turk? Dohezarsersdah (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is what the source says, and it does not say Turkic and thus we cannot say Turkic, we have to report it accurately. I repeat, I don't care what nationality he is, although it appears that you do. The important thing is that our articles use reliable sources and report them accurately, and where they disagree, show the disagreement. And as I've said, if you have a source that says anything more about his family and meets our criteria, by all means add it as well in an NPOV fashion. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you've made Wikipedia look idiotic. Can you appreciate the difference in quality between your source ("Phyllis Jestice" of the University of Southern Mississippi, lol) and Martin van Bruinessen publishing in a peer-reviewed journal? No? What fantastic admin we have here at Wikipedia... Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, your searching ability appears stunted. I have listed two scholarly journals stating Bektash was Turkish, including Voltaire. Instead of wasting time with childish remarks like, "...you've made Wikipedia look idiotic.", you should have refined your search parameters. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't surprise to see that Haji Bektash is accounted as a Persian according to three articles of thousands. It is very funny and I am not going to do anything except laughing on you, persian nationalist. If you don't know anything about his ethnicity, take his Turkish name "Bektas", take his brother name "Mentes". Sorry but nobody become a persian just because he is borned in Iran. As you know, maybe forget already, Turks ruled Iran for a thousand years, probably you count all of them persian. Anyway, you are very funny, nothingelse. Ongan (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

A note on sources. Books need to be cited properly, not just Google searched urls but with the full details. There's a template above this edit box that can be used, at the end of the top menu see Cite and click down, then down on Templates, cite books, and show extra fields so that you can add the page number. Sources must be quoted accurately and not intepreted, as I've stated above. Another instance of this is that [3], which is not cited properly, says he is an Iranian Sufi, not 'ethnic Persian'. There's a difference. People born in Iran are Iranians, but not necessarily ethnic Persians. I know this goes back to the Turkish family thing, but even so there are numerous instances of families from one country living in another. So Persian is ok but not ethnic Persian so far as I can see, particularly given the murkiness of the information around this person. Two sources don't meet the criteria for reliable sources, [4] and [5] and should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to:
  • Futuwwa Traditions in the Ottoman Empire Akhis, Bektashi Dervishes, and Craftsmen,G. G. Arnakis, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, Oct., 1953. --"...we see at once a man that made a lasting impression on his fellow Turks."
  • Mark Soileau, Humanist Mystics:Nationalism and the commemoration of saints in Turkey, 375; "Haji Bektash was a Turk.".
  • Works, Volume 3, Voltaire, 77; "...were sent to Sheykh Hagi Bektash, a Turk..".[6]
  • Indries Shah, The Way of the Sufi, 294; "..Bektash of the Turks...".
  • Richard Robert Madden, The Turkish Empire:In its relations with Christianity and civilization., Vol.1, 335; "...he sent them to Haji Bektash, a Turkish saint...".
  • The Birth of the Prophet: Ritual and Gender in Turkish Islam, Nancy Tapper and Richard Tapper, Man, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 1:90; "...that miraculous birth is alleged of many Turkish saints, including Hajji Bektash...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the quantity is important, but the quality. It does not matter how many books are googled and then listed as sources. What's important is the academic quality. And the Encyclopaedia Iranica is authoritative. It clearly states that the ethnic origins of the Haji Bektash are not known. What is known with certainty is that he was originally from Nishapur. Hence it is assumed that he was of Iranian (or maybe Persian) ethnic background and had moved to Anatolia because of the Mongol threat. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, another authoritative academic encyclopedia, also states: "We can however consider as certain the appearance in the 7th/i3th century, among the dervishes of Anatolia, of Hadjdji Bektash from Khurasan. He was probably a disciple of Baba Ishak [see BABA'I], whose revolt had taken place in 638/1240." (EI, Vol. 1, A-B, p. 1161) Lysozym (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we resolve this? The sources referring to him in an off-hand way as being Turkish are all over law quality or out-dated. Sayyed Hossein Nasr is perhaps the leading authority in the world on Sufism, and Brian Glyn Williams is published in a recent, peer-reviewed source. GAYousefSaanei (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyid Pir-e Horosan Hac-e Bektas-i Veli

The informations on the main site have to be corrected:

  • Hac-e Bektas Veli is a ethnic Turk, on the father side
  • his title "hace" means, people do hacc to him! not he is doing hacc to mecca
  • he is a Seyyid, a ancestor of the prophet Muhammed on the mother side, he is from the descent of prophet Ismael

178.115.250.8 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove the ethnicity

It is important, because the Turks, Persians and Kurds in argument about his origin. It is saying that Musa-i Kazim was his grand-grandfather, but he can´t be the decenders of Imam Musa-i Kazim. It is´nt anyway possible. Please prove this fact. If he was really from Chorassan - what i also think, because he preaches the Persian-Zoroastrian philosophie about drinking wine and dancing the Semah (like rumi had preaches) - then he was a Persian. And there is some other facts that confirm me and my minds about Haci Bektas Veli Persian origin. Omar khayyam,Abu l-Wafa, Fariduddin Attar, Firdausi, Hafes (Shiraz-i) are the childeren of the Islamic Golden Age. Most of them was´nt really muslims. They alle were Alevis, even Avicenna - though he was a sunni. It doenst matter which confession these people was belong, it is there attitude and how they was thinking about the Islam.

Wikipedia is not in the business of proof, we simply report what reliable sources say about a subject, and when there is disagreement we try to present all sides of an argument in proportion to their significance. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that he was a descendant of Musa al-Kadhim is not reliable at all. In fact, it is refuted by most experts. He was most likely a Persian from Khorasan, though this is not known for sure. His works were composed in Arabic and later translated into Turkish. The name "Baktash" was not his real name but given to him by his Turkoman followers. --Lysozym (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is sources, not claims, that we evaluate, but in any case I don't see Musa al-Kadhim in the article, what have I missed? Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haji_Bektash_Veli&oldid=495836282"