Jump to content

Talk:Sandžak

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

Language tags

[edit]

The article uses the Serbo-Croatian language and not the Bosnian one as a means to maintain neutrality between different national tags. It doesn't imply that Bosniaks don't live in Sandzak, nor does it imply that anything about the way the locals call their language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Issue

[edit]

@Khirurg The Albanian name was in the lead before you were edit-warring, so you'll need consensus to remove that at first. Don't bring Gjirokastra up, it's a city, while Sanjak is a historical region that covers two countries. This region does not have any official status in any of those two countries regarding muncipalities, etc. The south of Sanjak speaks Albanian, such as Gucia and Plave. Albanians form a singificant minority in Rozhaje and a minority in almost all cities. Let us not get into the history:

Die Kaza Bjelopolje (Akova) zählte 11 serbische Dörfer mit 216 Häusern, 2 gemischt serbisch - albanische Dörfer mit 25 Häusern und 47 albanische Dörfer mit 1 266 Häusern. Bjelopolje selbst hatte etwa 100 albanische und serbische.

Die Stadt Sjenica hatte 505 albanische Häuser.

Die Stadt Novi Bazar hatte 1 749 serbische und albanische Häuser. (and many more) Die albanischen Muslime zur Zeit der nationalen Unabhängigkeitsbewegung (1878-1912) (Bartl 1968).

Whatever happened to these Albanians (assimilation, immigration, emigration, massacres, etc.) I think that completely justifies the Albanian name on the box. Historical Albanian tribes such as the Kuqi, Piperi, Shkreli, Kelmendi settled in many parts of the Sanjak. You don't see me adding Albanian: (insert city name in Albanian) to all cities where Albanians form 1%, this is a historical region and something completely different. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2011 census, Albanians has its peak populated minority in Plave with 19%, 5% at Rožaje and the rest at <0.3%. Supposedly, Plave and Rožaje articles does contain the Albanian name for that reason. However, Sandžak is quite a huge area, almost covering the size of Kosovo. The Albanian population is, therefore, quite insignificant minority in overall Sandžak with approximately 1% population coverage. As for the topic of history, it would be much more appropriate for you to take this discussion to the articles about the historical tribes of Montenegro, respectively. --Azor (talk). 20:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still has no official status in both countries, therefore, I see no problem adding that. It's a historical region and Albanians have a historic presence there. This is not a city or settlement. I think the quotes I've shown show the historical Albanian presence, and I do not understand why this should be taken to the historical tribes of Montenegro. Aside from that, there have been massacres against the local Albanian population. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historically there was a large Albanian population in the past, so no reason why the Albanian name couldn’t be included. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you fine with that @AzorzaI? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the region's current insignificant ties to Albanians (i.e. 1% population coverage), it is accurate to say it exist a historical relevancy which makes it a relevant foreign language. I'm fine with that. --Azor (talk). 21:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the response. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the multiple language templates in the lead disrupts the flow. I prefer to put them all in a first section which includes the origin of the name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I now let the etymology section reflect on the name and its variants. --Azor (talk). 07:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 in fact, there has never been a significant Albanian population in the Sandžak region. Apart from an attested presence in the cities of the region, as well as in certain villages of the Pešter plateau, once populated by Albanians of the Kelmendi and Shkreli fis, the Albanians of Sandžak have always been essentially concentrated in the region of Plav and Gusinje, and have never been a majority even there. It is imperative to be wary of a certain propaganda currently circulating from Kosovo, which aims to Albanize Sandžak, and which is echoed in some of the edit wars on Wikipedia. Krisitor (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements rejecting RS and claiming that that's "propaganda" without evidence can be dismissed. @AzorzaI you may restore the Albanian name on the box since that's not what you've agreed upon (you have only talked about the lead, not the box; for some reason the Serbo-Croatian name remained there). Long story short: I'd be fine with the current version if the Albanian name is restored on the box. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Peacemaker's version is the cleanest. Letting the Etymology section reflect on the region's name variants saves the article from some unnecessary distraction. --Azor (talk). 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian name on the box does not distract at all. And again, that's not what you've agreed upon. Strangely enough, even if you did, the Serbo-Croatian name remained on the box while you agreed into put them all to the first section. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only agreed upon the mentioning of the Albanian name variant. Where and how it would be portrayed wasn't agreed upon until Peacemaker came up with a suitable suggestion. And no, it's not strange to leave the Serbo-Croatian variant on the infobox. That variant is used very extensively in English sources and the inhabitants of the region - hence why that variant is used as the article's title. This is in heavy contrast to the Albanian variant which only has an historical relevancy, of some sort. --Azor (talk). 18:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 would you find it appropriate to include the Albanian name on the box, therefore not disrupting and bombing the lead? AlexBachmann (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My claims are not baseless, there is a Kosovo-Albanian website dedicated to the promotion of this propaganda, from which I've seen content almost copy pasted on WP. Btw, the only relevant RS used in this article regarding the Albanian presence in the area is Bartl (1968) which is quite outdated. There are other much more recent and valuable sources. Krisitor (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're telling me you are using a non-RS website to invalidate a RS? Unless a RS can disprove what Bartl describes, this will show the historical presence in the Sandzak region. Also, a name on the box does not constitute "propaganda" under any circumstances. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was only telling you that my claims are not baseless. And I didn't talk about the name in the infobox, as I don't care at all about it. You can write it in any language you want, including Romanian since Vlachs are known to have inhabited the area before the Slavs settled there. Krisitor (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is propaganda to almost everything. There is Greek propaganda claiming North Epirus and Skanderbeg. There is Albanian propaganda claiming that Albanians descend from Pelasgians and that Kleopatra was Albanian. There is Serbian propaganda claiming that Slavs descend from the Vinca culture. Welcome to the Balkans! That's how that works here... AlexBachmann (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I wouldn’t put any of them in the infobox either. There are too many potential inclusions, it would cause a lot of clutter, and it is likely to cause more disputation. This is English WP, just have a comprehensive name and etymology section and leave it at that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @AlexBachmann: Krisitor's comment is wrong in many ways. 2/3 of Muslims of Sandžak today are descendants of Albanians who settled there in the late 17th and 18th centuries. The fact that in the last 70 years, a process of linguistic Slavicization has taken place doesn't mean much in the context of what we're discussing. A hundred years ago, Albanian was a major language of the region as reflected in demographic reports of the era. I agree with PM's edits and comments.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that, I was just responding to Krisitor writing his claims are not baseless. There is propaganda to pretty much everything on the Balkans, and therefore cannot be used as an argument. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandžak&oldid=1256304627"