From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hajji Bektash Wali article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Hajji Bektash Wali:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

[edit] Comments

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's well understood that, Wikipedia is NOT a scientific based reference anymore.

85.99.95.67 11:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)