Talk:Sanjak of Bosnia

Renaming the article

Resolved

I propose to rename the article to Bosnian Sanjak. Here you can see that there are no google books search results for Bosnia Sanjak (except sequence "Bosnia, Sanjak..."), and here you can see that there are more than 150 books with expression Bosnian Sanjak. Here on Serbian language Bosnian Sanjak has more than 500 hits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The language you are reffering to as "Serbian" would rather be considered Bosnian or Croatian by millions of native speakers. NPOV please. :) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the article II

Wikipedia article naming conventions clearly state the most common name in the language of the concerned encyclopedia should be used. Its name in Serbian, Chinese or Klingon is irrelevant for the English wikipedia. Google books hits show that the 'Sanjak of Bosnia is the most common, and I will request a move to that title. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sanjak of Bosnia" -wikipedia - 37 hits

"Bosnian Sanjak" -wikipedia - 16 hits

Good point. Sanjak of Bosnia is obviously better solution. No need for RM. This is a case of non-controversial move.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Major changes

Editing policy says: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). I will revert latest major changes of the article because I think they are wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Provide sources to your statements, you have not so far. My edits are linked to articles which do provide them, such as the Vilayet Law of 1864. What is wrong according to you? I suspect this is part of your POV crusade on the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The period of the Sanjak of Bosnia clearly states 1463–1878, would you claim that the Bosnian Kingdom as a unit had definitely disappeared already before 1463? In that case you're on slippery ice: The Bosnian Kingdom lasted until 1463, when most of the country was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. - Analysis and Reform of Cultural Heritage Policies in South-East Europe. Rob Pickard, Florent Çeliku - 2008, p. 25. [1]. Just one source in a heap of which put the end of the Bosnian Kingdom in 1463. This so far makes me the only one of us who has provided a source. The classic Serb nationalist attempt regarding Bosnian historiography is to dissect any Bosnian continuity into many small pieces to the point that Bosnia was reinvented every 20 years or so from a "Serbian" foundation. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Although it is you who should according to editing policy discuss your major changes and gain consensus before you make them, I accept to discuss your major changes after you made them and to explain why they are wrong.
• For the beginning: When Bosnian Sanjak was established in 1463 large parts of the Kingdom of Bosnia were already captured by Ottomans for decades. When Ottomans consolidated their control over Vrhbosna in 1451 they established a separate administrative unit (Bosansko Krajište or Vilayet Hodidjed) which was a part of larger Ottoman borderland entity (Skopsko-Bosansko Krajište) which capital was in (Skopje). Like with all borderland entities, the borders of this entity were not fixed. They expanded to the west together with Ottoman conquest. Only after Ottomans included the whole territory of the Kingdom of Bosnia in it in 1463, they decided to establish the Bosnian Sanjak. According to Template:Infobox former subdivision the infobox should contain information about the "preceding entity". That is certainly not Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which actually is not any kind of entity. Don't you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)