Talk:Bektashi Order

message: Someone requested a third opinion in this dispute between freestylefrappe and AldirmaGonul (plus SamSpade and Wilgamesh, whom freestylefrappe accuses of being a sock puppet, on no better evidence than him agreeing with AldirmaGonul). I am not a Muslim of any sect, and before seeing the request for a third opinion, knew nothing about Bektashi religion or culture. I have been reading the discussion here, the article, and the references, and I've been holding my tongue until I had enough of an understanding to make a decision one way or the other. AldirmaGonul has made a very strong case that jokes of this type are an integral and important part of Bektashi culture.  It is completely irrelevant that freestylefrappe finds them offensive, for exactly the same reason it is completely irrelevant that SamSpade likes them and finds them funny. It is also irrelevant whether they are 'racist jokes' or not (an issue which has not been and need not be decided). The only issue is whether they are a part of Bektashi culture, because if they are, then an impartial encyclopedia article that accurately and completely documents that culture would include at least samples of such jokes. An analogy has been drawn to including 'black jokes' on a page about African Americans, but I find that analogy hollow. Perhaps a better analogy would be including 'black jokes' in an article about the Ku Klux Klan, if such jokes were an important part of Klan culture (but without any pejorative implication about Bektashi culture that the analogy might convey).  An even better anology might be including 'Pollack jokes' in a page about Poland, if Poles themselves told those jokes about themselves.  To the extent that the Bektashi jokes criticize other Muslim sects (as well as their own), members of those sects will be offended, but that is irrelevant in a decision about what to include or exclude. The focus should be on accurately and completely describing the subject of the article. If an accurate description offends members of other sects, that is not Wikipedia's fault. Indeed, it would be a fault in Wikipedia to leave out an important fact, to make Bektashi culture appear less offensive to other sects than it is (if it is). I cite the five pillars, particularly the first, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and the fifth, "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules" such as "absolutely no jokes in articles about religion" that freestylefrappe wishes to enforce.  My third opinion: this article should have those sample jokes in it, and anyone who deletes them, or reverts the article to delete them, should be blocked. I will delete the request for a third opinion; I leave it up to the participants in the dispute to restore the jokes to the article, and I hope this ends the dispute. Aumakua 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this didn't work, since the jokes remain deleted. A pity, since a page about Bektashism with no mention of Bektashi jokes is like a page about Zen with no mention of koans. Solri (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I have added a section on Bektashi humour. The jokes are different, but if anyone wants to dig out the original ones and add them, that would be fine. Please note Aumakua's comment about deleting or reverting; if there is anything problematic about these particular jokes, feel free to edit, but deleting jokes because they are "offensive" is vandalism. Solri (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: What reason is there to think that Nygdan's material is a direct text dump? He's stated it isn't ; have you checked his sources, Freestylefrappe? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: As a Bektashi, I take issue to Nygdan's overuse of this material stressing pagan borrowings in folk religion. Such traditions are NOT part of Bektashi spirituality. Perhaps this person should initiate an entry on pagan survivals among the people of the Balkans instead. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bektashi110 (talk • contribs) 00:21, January 28, 2006  (UTC)
:I've restored the material for now, since it belongs somewhere, probably. If you want to split off the material from this page, you should make the effort to do so, instead of just deleting the information. Note: I personally have no interest in or knowledge of this subject area; I'd strongly suggest you and Nygdan talk about the content here to hash out what is best for the article. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The info looks like a copyvio text dump to me. For now it should stay until another page, perhaps your suggestion of Paganism in the Balkans, is created, or illegitimacy is proven. freestylefrappe 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you understand you cant just dump text from a book without permission? I saw your userpage. Bektashi and Alawi are Islamic divisions whether you like it or not. The content you added is not being ridiculed for offensiveness as you are trying to misportrary, but its irrelevance. freestylefrappe 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan Survivals 

message: There is no evidence whatsoever that the 17th century Jewish "messiah" had contact with the Bektashi Order. Unfortunately this is an oft repeated fallacy that need no be repeated here. It is equally unfortunate that this entry has become a dumping ground for all sorts of misinformation and half truths. Perhaps if would be wise to seek a lock on it.
Bektashi110
:The influence of Sabbatainism (Sabbatai Zevi) and Hurufizm (Ali Al-Allah) on Bektashism
You can get some references by googling Sabbatai Bektashi, eg
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/Zevi_and_Bektashi.htm
http://www.donmeh-west.com/re-evaluation.shtml
http://www.sunnirazvi.org/forum/read.php?f=15&i=3&t=3
Although soemone is removing the links from the Bektashi page for some reason... I think they are also removing links to Hurufizm. There are ongoing debates about whether Hurufizm is an Islamic or pagan or atheist discipline and so I think soem Bektashia maybe eager to distance Bektashism from either Sabbatainism or Hurufizm. Paki.tv 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabbatai Sevi et. al.

message: I found a Bektashi poem in "Bektachiyya Etudes sur l'ordre mystique des Bektachis et les groupes relevant de Hadji Bektach". It is in Turkish with adjoining translation. It has strong Hurufis undertones, and is attribute Balim Sultan (d.922/1516). I would like to put it on in the article any thoughts?
Text: Istivayi ozler gozum. (My eye seeks out repose) Seb'al-mesani'dir yuzum (my face is the oft reperated seven. ie Fatiha) Ana'l-Hakki soyler sozum (My words proclaim 'I am the truth') Miracimiz dardir bizim (Our ascension is by means of the scaffold) Haber aldik muhkemattan *(We have become aware through the firm letters) Gecmeyiz zattan sifattan (we will not abandon essence or attributes) Balim nihan soyler hakk'tan (Balim speaks arcanely of God) Irsadimiz sirdir bizim (Our teaching is a mystery). Any input?Altrafton 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bektashi Poem 

message: his name bektash is turkic bek means lord or strong tash means rock his name means strong rock in turkic languages. it's uncommon a native persian adopted a turkic name while it's common to turks taking islamic (arabic or persian) names. furthermore haji bektash is in the list of silsila (chain) of turkistan saints after saint of turkestan hodja ahmad yesevi. branches of that silsila exclusively turkic. of course theirs was to a degree persianized culture and bore elements from both turkic shamanism and iranic zoroastrianism. origins of a historical figure creates unnecessary controversy yet i think it's important to give credit to turkistan saints silsila's cultural origins, because they represent a distinctive form of islam compared to persian and arabic cultural influences. without giving that credit it will be harder to analyze certain cultural influences in islamic thinking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.131.182 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  haji bektash isn't persian 

message: The bektashi are sufi not shia.عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm surprised that the infobox places this article under Shia Islam. As the article points out, the Ottoman Janissaries were also initiated into Bektashism, and they weren't exactly Shiites ;-) Solri (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia infoboxes 

message: If this is about Shi'a Islam, shouldn't that be sourced somewhere in the article? Did I miss it? Seraphim System (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a Islam 

message: The large table given has no source, and I am strongly minded to remove it. On the face of it (to me, with some academic training in Islam) it looks tendentious: I note several comments from Bektashis in the threads above about being wrongly accused of syncretism, where their perception is that they are authentically Muslim (for want of a better term): the table would seem to do the same, forte. We should probably expect a source on every one of those links. But perhaps we don't even need to debate the merits of the genealogy given there: the connecting pipes are so vague as to make the table meaningless (and unhelpful) beyond vague insinuations. Are there other thoughts on this? Eteb3 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of the Bektashi faith 

message: The opening claim that the Bektashi Order is short for what is confusingly called here the "Shī‘ah Imāmī Alevī-Bektāshī Ṭarīqah" is simply incorrect and unsubstatiated by existing literature on this religious tradition. 
The name of the order is, in keeping with typical Sufi practice of organising a set of teachings around that of a founding historical and religious personality, dervied from the name of the 13th century Anatolian religious figure from whom the Order traces it's lineage. It is not an abbreviation of anything. 
On the subject of including the Bektashis under the rubric of Imami Shi'ism, this has sometimes been a practice by some historians of Shi'ism such as Moojan Momen who includes it in a list of Shi'ite groups due to some superficial similarities in devotional practices and rhetoric but is rarely taken seriously by specialists in the field who stress the amalgamation of various religious currents in Medieval Anatolia to the distinct character of the Bektashis 
In older literature on the subject it was thought that the Bektashis may have been "Shi'itised" in the 15th century due to their proximity to Safavid propogandists. This view has been challenged in more recent studies which indicate increased Alid cultic practices to communities outside of this reach. In any case the Bektashis themselves don't refer to themselves as Shi'ite, and certainly not Imami which conventially designates a particular form of religiosity maininted by a scholastic and legalistic hierarchy, not simply a devotion to the Twelve Imams which can be found amoung a multitude of non Shi'ite Muslim communities, especially in Anatolian Sufism.
On the question of the common term Alevis often use to express their tradition in contemporary Turkey, that is "Alevi-Bektashi". This is a rather novel self designation of Alevi communities, particularly intellectuals in the 1980s and never a term used by the Bektashi Order which is an entirely seperate institution. On this subject I'd recommend consulting Markus Dressler's "Writing Religion" for a history in the evolution of this terminology. 
To summarise, I feel it would be far more accurate to refer to the tradition in question to what it is called by both the Bektashis themselves an academia at large. That is simply, The Bektashis. Spinningsun (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order name 

message: The 3rd paragraph of the page states that "Albania is the country with the most Bektashis, where they make up 20% of the Muslim population." The number comes from reference 9. The number is highly  though in the referred source it is mentioned twice. According to the Albania page, the whole population of the country is 2.8 million, there is less than 1.6 million Muslims (all Sunnis) and only 58 thousand Bektashi. That would do only about 3.75% of the Albanian Muslims, so the 20% is way off.
PeterGabris (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bektashi is much less than 20% of Muslims in Albania  

message: :The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not Moved  Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bektashi Order →   Bektashism is much more suitable for this article as it is the WP:COMMONNAME now. See  [Ngrams]  QKIMK (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

text: That Ngram is about 50:50, so it makes little case for a move. Meanwhile, Google Scholar shows quite a different story. You get 2,050 hits for "Bektashi Order", versus just 53 hits for "Bektashism", so likely not at all the common name in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your google scholar search has a spelling mistake, 'bektashism' has 2,170 hits —blindlynx 20:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Restricting google scholar searched to the last five years (2017-present) shows a clearer trend towards 'Bektashism' with 750 hits  vs 519 —blindlynx 20:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Oops, I could have sworn I double checked that. All of these comparisons are still little better than 50:50, 60:40-ish. We really need a better argument than Ngram and Google Scholar. This case should be being made by pulling up examples of recent authoritative sources referring to it as Bektashism rather than the Bektashi Order. It should be doable, as the movement appears to have shifted fairly clearly over its history from being a Sufi Order into something far more akin to its own syncretistic faith. Sources should reflect this. This type of narrative is reflected in pieces such as this, but we should really be looking for more scholarly evidence for such a shift in terminology from reputable, academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So something else to consider is that 'Bektashi Order' (searched without quotes) has 1660 hits since 2017 .   We're going to have to look at the sources more closely to see what's going on—blindlynx 21:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also plenty of people and companies with Bektashi as a name, as noted in the last review of this, which went about things by excluding "LLC". So yes, source studying required. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a not uncommon trend for some works to manage to refer to the movement without deferring to either term - instead, sticking to just Bektashi and Bektashis (E.g.: here) Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Please re-read the points i have made, i don't think there is a clear case for a moveor keepwithout a review of sources that is simply haven't had the time to do—blindlynx 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Request move January 2022