Talk:Sanjak of Albania/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 per request and discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Albanian Sanjak → Sanjak of Albania – per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:USEENGLISH

• "Albanian Sanjak" -Llc 8

But, in most of all samples, Albanian Sanjak was used with meaning of "Albanian sanjak of Ochrida" (Sanjak of Ochrida), "Albanian sanjak of Scutari" (Sanjak of Scutari).

• "Sanjak of Albania" -Llc 7
• "Sandjak of Arnavid" -Llc 1
• "Sandjak of Albania" -Llc 6

Takabeg (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I am involved user because I created this article. I named it Albanian Sanjak because I thought that was the form used in the literature I used as sources for this article. Now when Takabeg explained what is most common form used in the literature on English, I support this proposal. Thank you very much Takabeg for good observation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support per nom. Takabeg what is the precise translation of the title from Ottoman Turkish?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Renaming again

Having reviewed the literature, it seems that the above users missed this important encyclopaedia of the ottoman empire from which to base their views. Hence I changed it to conform to the correct translation of the term.Ottomanist (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't change it unless you gain consensus first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, present your case? (Let's not edit war please, it seems quite banal) Ottomanist (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You present one book, where the name is literally translated from the Turkish. However, you have to see how is this Sanjak is usually referred to in bibliography. One example means nothing. If you find 70 cases of form 1 and 30 form 2, then we go for form 1. If you find 40-50-60/60-50-40, then we can also examine other factors. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@ottomanist, please respect the consensus and sources..Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What sources, you've clearly been disproved, according to your own well-respected historians.Ottomanist (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ottomanist, please refrain from writing against a user. We need to see sources. Sources are sources, they are not mine, they are not yours, they are not Antidiskriminator's. You have found one. Are there any other sources? --FocalPoint (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is writing against a user, this is not a place for self-made maps according to original research. Your own source, the only one to mention a 'Arnavid Sancak' i.e., Inalcik, has been used to refute the idea of a 'sancak of Albania'. Ottomanist (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The map is not self-made original research. It is well sourced. The author of the map is German historian Peter Bartl. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, wrong again. He does not label to map 'Sancak of Albania' nor does footnote 8 in the article (I take it you don't read Albanian?) - the source reads 'Albanian sancak'= Sanxhakut Shqiptar not Sanxhaku i Shqiperis. A simple google search of books easily brings out the fact that there never existed a 'Sancak of Albania' but rather a 'Sancak of Albanians' which did not even include places like Shkoder or Vlore. I propose a) renaming the article and then b) I (or if you want to help, but you're going to have to have access to Encylopedia of Islam II in order to do this properly) can fix the article to scholarly standard. Ottomanist (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The map shows the territory of the sanjak which is the topic of this article. There was a consensus about the name of this article (see one section above). If you want to rename it please follow the WP:RM process. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The map represents your original work. Inalcik doesn't label any map the 'Sancak of Albania' nor does footnote eight (8) within the article (I take it you don't read Albanian?) - the source reads 'Albanian sancak'= Sanxhakut Shqiptar not Sanxhaku i Shqiperis. A simple google search of books easily brings out the fact that there never existed a 'Sancak of Albania' but rather a 'Sancak of Albanians' which did not even include places like Shkoder or Vlore. There seems to be a backlog of issues on the requested moves page, so I will wait a day or two then request that. Ottomanist (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No. As per Gbook hits, MOS (See Category:Sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire), -> the Turkish name "Arvanid sancağı" (compare with Karadağ Sancağı, Yanya Sancağı etc) the name you request will never go through.--Zoupan 22:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Castelnuevo

Solved:Obviously false statement removed.

The section "Sanjak" of the article contains the following statement: Piri Reis claimed in his work Bahriye, a Sailor's Handbook written in 1521 that Herceg Novi belonged to the Sanjak of Albania. —  I have several concerns over the inclusion of this statement: The disestablishment of Sanjak of Albania preceded the succession of Castelnuovo by Ottoman Empire. Being an officer in Ottoman Empire Piri Reis couldn't believe by the time of writing of Bahriye, a Sailor's Handbook that Castelnuovo indeed belongs to the administrative division that ceased to exist at the time of his birth. The statement is referenced to the English translation of Austrian source and can't be found elsewhere. All of this make me think that the statement is simply a translation mistake. Even if I'm wrong, reporting the obviously false statement (even by a notable person) in this context is something we shouldn't do. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Agreed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes in references

Solved:Quotes are removed since sources are available online.

The references are literally overwhelmed with quotes. Given that most of them are rephrased in the article's body, do we need them at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Maybe they can be hidden with <!-- --> like I did it with this diff?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC) They can; still I see no purpose they serve: the whole concept of the references is based on the assumption that the interested reader will find the source and read it if needed. The quotes themselves are only useful for sources that either are difficult to access or navigate (eg. offline-only sources or films). This is not the case with most of these. Furthermore, most quotes are either in Albanian or in Serbo-Croatian, thus mostly useless for the purpose of comprehending English Wikipedia article. FWIW, I think the quotes should be just stripped and the references joined, so that the reader could properly see the weight given to each source easily. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, you are right. Since most of the references used in this article are available online there is no need for quotes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Establishment date

The first register (defter) dates to 1431–32. Sources do state that the sanjak was established in 1431, and not 1385.--Zoupan 22:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There are cited assertions in this article mentioning this sanjak in 1400 and 1419. In 1385 the Ottomans took control over this part of Balkans. Maybe they did not immediately establish this sanjak, but since it already existed in 1400 and 1419, the establishment was well before the first census in 1431. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

But those are Albanian urban planning and museum overview documents, hardly reliable for this historical matter. Elsie does say "By 1431, the Turks had incorporated all of southern Albania into the Ottoman Empire and set up a 'sanjak' administration with its capital in Gjirokastra, captured in 1419." Parts of Albania were indeed controlled by the Ottomans earlier, but does that mean that the sanjak of Albania was established in 1385, or when Gjirokastra was captured in 1419? I suggest the removal of the two citations which only add confusion, and that we change 1385 to 1431 until we have better sources.--Zoupan 02:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Archivum Ottomanicum obviously describes Hadım Suleiman Pasha (governor of Rumelia).--Zoupan 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources which mention this sanjak well before its first census in 1431:

• Robert Elsie (30 May 2015). The Tribes of Albania: History, Society and Culture. I.B.Tauris. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-78453-401-1. Victorious at the famed Battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Turks took Shkodra in 1393 and overran Kruja in 1415. After the conquest, they founded the Ottoman Sanjak of Albania
• Stavro Skendi (1980). Balkan Cultural Studies. East European Monographs. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-914710-66-0. ...and by 1415-1417 the province of Albania, Arvanid-ili or Arnavud-ili, was constituted.
• Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb (1967). The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill. p. 654. ...province of Arvanid-ili or Arnavud-ili (818-20/ 1415-1417).
• Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı; İSAM Türkiye Diyanet Vakf ıİslâm Araştrımalar ıMerkezi (1991). İslâm ansiklopedisi: Amasya - Âşik mûsikisi. Türkiye Diyanet Vakf ıİslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü. p. 385. Nihayet duruma müdahale eden Osmanlılarla Venedikliler arasında çıkan savaşta Osmanlılar galip gelmiş ve Arnavutluk'un tamamını ele geçirerek Arvanid-ili (Amavut-ili) adıyla bilinen sancağı kurmuşlardır (1415-1417).
• Arslan Tekin (2008). Balkan volkanı. Bilgeoğuz. p. 220. ISBN 978-605-5965-75-4. Osmanlılar 1415-1417 arasında Arnavutluk'u tamamen ele geçirerek Arvanid-ili (Arnavut-ili) adıyla bilinen sancağı kurarlar.

That is why I did not assume that Albanian urban planning and museum overview document was wrong. I will try to find more sources for pre 1415 Sanjak of Albania. Until then, I propose to move the establishment date to 1415 per above presented sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deal. It seems there is Turkish concensus on 1415–17.--Zoupan 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Subdivisions prior to 1466

So, the sanjak was disestablished in 1466 with the establishment of the sanjak of Elbasan. Editorial Committee of the International Union of Academies (1960). THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM: A–B. Vol. 1. London: E.J.Brill. states that the vilayets (sub-divisions) of Arvanid were "Argirikasri, Klisura, Kanina, Belgrade, Timor-indje, Iskarapar, Pavlo-Kurtik, Cartalos and Akcahisar". This is not the 1431–32 state. Antidiskriminator, could you find reliable sources on the administrative divisions after 1432, and perhaps also the primary sources (defters)?--Zoupan 22:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, the subdivisions seem to have been the same.--Zoupan 23:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)