Talk:Sanjak of Novi Pazar

Untitled

During a fal of the Otoman E. the representativ peopel of this Sandjak they wontit to be a part of Kosova Vilajet. They was prasent at the Liga of Prizren--172.158.41.88 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can anyone produce a better map of the Sanjak? Perhaps one with some contect that shows more than just its shape? Thanks.--Eva ^bd 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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 not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Sanjak of Novi Pazar → Sanjak of Novibazar – per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:USEENGLISH

It's clear taht B is preferred to P in English language.

• "Sanjak of Novi Pazar" -Llc 684
  • "Sanjak of Novi Pazar" -Llc (1923-2011, minimum) 234
  • "Sanjak of Novi Pazar" -Llc (1960-2011, minimum) 204
• "Sanjak of Novi Bazar" -Llc 1820
  • "Sanjak of Novi Bazar" -Llc (1923-2011, minimum) 282
  • "Sanjak of Novi Bazar" -Llc (1960-2011, minimum) 175
• "Sanjak of Novipazar" -Llc 152
• "Sanjak of Novibazar" -Llc 1910
  • "Sanjak of Novibazar" -Llc (1923-2011, minimum) 293
  • "Sanjak of Novibazar" -Llc (1960-2011, minimum) 202
• "Sanjak of Yenipazar" -Llc 2
• "Sanjak of Novi Bazaar" -Llc 48
• "Sanjak of Novibazaar" -Llc 6

Takabeg (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am afraid that those are two different Sanjak's... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support your other similar requests if on different merits. However, this is an example of why Wikipedia isn't Google (or shouldn't be). Novibazar is a bit deprecated in English. —  AjaxSmack  07:19, 7 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.

Vilayets before 1864

With this edit Praxis Icosahedron stated "Vilayets only came to exist in 1864, there is no basis to discuss about them in the 1400s already". There are, of course, plenty of sources which confirm that vilayets did exist before 1864. I hope this one would be enough:

• Revue de philologie orientale, Volume 51 published by Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu in 2003: "Tada je Skopsko krajište u svome sastavu imalo slijedeće vilajete: Skoplje, Kalkandelen (danas Tetovo), Veles, Sjenica, Ras, Jeleč, Zvečan, Nikšići i Hodidid (Hodidjed)."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

start date

When did the sanjak came to exist? The article mentions something about a kadiluk, early on, but that'snot a sanjak. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I noticed that year 1485 has been added as year of the establishment of Novi Pazar. Here is the quote about the seat of kadi: "središta iz Jeleča u Novi Pazar izvršeno svakako nešto prije 1485 g., kada je Jeleč već bio izgubio raniji strateški značaj, a Novi Pazar, kome je Isa-beg Ishaković udario temelje još šezdesetih godina XV st. razvio se dotle u veću varoš." I think that this text does not support the assertion that this sanjak was established in 1485. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case it obviously couldn't have been before the year of 1485, which is why changed it from 1463. Leaving the founding year blank might be the most sensible thing to do since we don't have an actual source? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 08:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Or "end of 15th century"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Even better! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 10:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Preceding entity

If this sanjak was created from the Bosnian Sanjak it would be good to replace preceding entity in the infobox and to present Bosnian Sanjak instead of Serbian Despotate.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the Bosnian Sanjak appears to be the directly preceding entity (even though it included Novi Pazar only for a short period of time). Are you comfortable with removing the Serbian Despotate altogether or should we indicate both? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 14:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This part of the Serbian Despotate was permanently captured in 1455, before Novi Pazar and this sanjak was established. Therefore I would completely remove the Serbian Despotate from infobox as preceding entity. What do you think should Serbian Despotate be added to Bosnian Sanjak as one of its preceding entities?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good remark, however the Serbian Despotate, and consequently the region which would harbor Novi Pazar, was initially part of Skopsko Krajiste (in 1455 that is) prior to being joined to the Bosnian Sanjak upon its foundation in 1463, which is the reason we have indicated both the kingdom of Bosnia and the process of Ottoman conquest(s) as preceding entities of the Bosnian sanjak. If anything, the Serbian Despotate would rather be one of the preceding entities to the Skopsko Krajiste, along with other regions. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

1. There are sources which say that before the Sanjak of Bosnia was established in 1463 there was certain administrative unit called Bosansko Krajište. Is it possible that Bosansko not Skopsko Krajište actually preceded Bosnian Sanjak?
2. Regardless if it was Bosansko or Skopsko Krajište which preceded the Sanjak of Bosnia, do you agree that in the article about Sanjak of Bosnia the infobox should be corrected and instead of Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina preceding entity should be Bosansko/Skopsko Krajište?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Actually, both of the points are already covered in the article on the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia. However, as also concluded by user:Joy, there is not enough information or historical basis to create an entirely independent article for the "Bosansko/Skopsko Krajište" entity. What we can do is to re-name the link after it, but the main article remains the Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the link should be certainly renamed to clarify that Krajište was preceding entity of the Sanjak of Bosnia. There are plenty of informations about this entity (link to 64 Google books hits). I hope I will have some time in future to prepare a decent article on it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now exchanged the old link for "Bosansko Krajiste". You are certainly more than welcome to do so, but make sure to substantiate the article with proper citations. I don't recall your and Joy's resolution in detail but I believe it was agreed that either too little is known about these historical events or that they were largely irrelevant to build a separate article upon them. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged close paraphrasing

I've removed Template:Close paraphrasing from the header. It was added a year and a half ago by an IP address user with no other edits who didn't provide a justification for doing so or a link to the work allegedly copied from. Anyone who can find evidence this article IS closely paraphrased from a copyrighted source should document the source and feel free add the template back. Tisnec (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)