Talk:Sandžak

Changes

Bosniaco,

Changing constantly parts of this article with no explanation is vandalism. Please explain your changes here. Here I will explain my:

• The coat of arms of Sandžak is unofficial. There is no official one, since Sandžak is only geographical region. Please explain why you deleting this part.
• There were numerous declared Muslims in census. Why you deleting mention of them?
• Raška was Serbian state. Why you deleting reference that this state was Serbian?

User:PANONIAN 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Bosniaco, your claim that Serbian nation did not exist in the Middle Ages is ridiculous. I do not care if Bosniaks believe that they are descendants of Aliens from Mars, but the large percent of present day population of Sandžak are Serbs, and you should not to delete their history, because I did not delete the history of your people. User:PANONIAN 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Crap, but you are used to it. Nation is not the same term as people. It has different meaning. Disputed.--Emir Arven 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What you talking about? You want to say that people who lived in this region in the Medieval ages did not consider themselves as Serbs? It is very well known that they consider themselves as Serbs. As for census data, please do not post false data into article. Numerous people declared themselves as Muslims by nationality in census, thus listing them as Bosniaks is simply wrong. PANONIAN (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Here is the official 2002 census data about ethnic groups in municipalities of Serbia:

• http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu/axd/popis.htm

I will now personally calculate these numbers, and then we will have real statistics numbers how many Bosniaks, Muslims by nationality, Serbs, and Montenegrins live in Sandžak (I have also data for Montenegrin part). PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Now here is the official statistics of Sandžak, if anybody do not believe in these numbers, he can calculate them by himself, everything is here:

• Pljevlja = 36.918
• Montenegrins = 7.750 (20,99%)
• Muslims by nationality = 3.088 (8,36%)
• Serbs = 21.972 (59,52%)
• Albanians = 11 (0,03%)
• Croats = 17 (0,05%)
• Bosniaks = 2.023 (5,48%)
• Roma = 0

• Bijelo Polje = 57.124
• Montenegrins = 9.214 (16,13%)
• Muslims by nationality = 9.816 (17,18%)
• Serbs = 20.743 (36,31%)
• Albanians = 35 (0,06%)
• Croats = 49 (0,09%)
• Bosniaks = 14.409 (25,22%)
• Roma = 146 (0,26%)

• Berane = 40.885
• Montenegrins = 9.282 (22,70%)
• Muslims by nationality = 2.994 (7,32%)
• Serbs = 16.939 (41,43%)
• Albanians = 41 (0,10%)
• Croats = 50 (0,12%)
• Bosniaks = 8.994 (22,00%)
• Roma = 133 (0,33%)

• Andrijevica = 6.384
• Montenegrins = 1.475 (23,10%)
• Muslims by nationality = 8 (0,13%)
• Serbs = 4.155 (65,08%)
• Albanians = 0
• Croats = 2 (0,03%)
• Bosniaks = 0
• Roma = 0

• Plav = 21.604
• Montenegrins = 790 (3,66%)
• Muslims by nationality = 1.249 (5,78%)
• Serbs = 2.731 (12,64%)
• Albanians = 5.673 (26,26%)
• Croats = 4 (0,02%)
• Bosniaks = 10.960 (50,73%)
• Roma = 0

• Rožaje = 27.562
• Montenegrins = 453 (1,64%)
• Muslims by nationality = 1.670 (6,06%)
• Serbs = 916 (3,32%)
• Albanians = 1.190 (4,32%)
• Croats = 8 (0,03%)
• Bosniaks = 22.512 (81,68%)
• Roma = 15 (0,05%)

• Novi Pazar = 85.996
• Montengrins = 109
• Muslims by nationality = 1.599
• Serbs = 17.599
• Bosniaks = 65.593

• Tutin = 30.054
• Montenegrins = 20
• Muslims by nationality = 223
• Serbs = 1.299
• Bosniaks = 28.319

• Sjenica = 27.970
• Montenegrins = 23
• Muslims by nationality = 659
• Serbs = 6.572
• Bosniaks = 20.512

• Prijepolje = 41.188
• Montengrins = 271
• Muslims by nationality = 3.812
• Serbs = 23.402
• Bosniaks = 13.109

• Nova Varoš = 19.982
• Montenegrins = 73
• Muslims by nationality = 502
• Serbs = 18.001
• Bosniaks = 1.028

• Priboj = 30.377
• Montenegrins = 432
• Muslims by nationality = 1.427
• Serbs = 22.523
• Bosniaks = 5.567

• Montenegrin Sandžak total = 190.477
• Montenegrins = 28.964 (15,21%)
• Muslims by nationality = 18.825 (9,88%)
• Serbs = 67.456 (35,41%)
• Bosniaks = 58.898 (30,92%)

• Serbian Sandžak total = 235.567
• Montenegrins = 928 (0,40%)
• Muslims by nationality = 8.222 (3,49%)
• Serbs = 89.396 (37,95%)
• Bosniaks = 134.128 (56,94%)

• Sandžak total = 426.044
• Montenegrins = 29.892 (7,02%)
• Muslims by nationality = 27.047 (6,35%)
• Serbs = 156.852 (36,82%)
• Bosniaks = 193.026 (45,31%)

PANONIAN (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What?

Someone put that Serbia and Montenegro are independent states - they're not (at least not yet). This is against the spirit of Wikipedia, as it predicts the future, and not informs the presence. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It happened in many articles, not only here. You cannot stop this everywhere once it started. PANONIAN (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone knows the pronunciation/Latin translation of Sandžak?

I'd like to get a Chinese translation for this placename. Can anyone record the pronunciation of the name or provide the IPA for it? There's no Chinese translation online yet.--Fitzwilliam 15:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be Sanjak ("j" like the one from English word "joke"). Serbian "dž" is same as English "j" used in this word. PANONIAN (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something like [sandʒak] -- Serguei Trouchelle 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslims by nationality

This peopel are asimiletit albaninas. I know that the political and military circeltamses dont let this peopel to be declareted how they wount, but in the democratical system they are going to be declareted wout they are. This peopel historical, ekonmical, cultural was part of Kosovo. Ther represents of this peopel was part of the Prizren Liga. The problem is that this peopel from the represalien have chanced they name exempel Qosa to Qosovic, Rexhep Aga to Recepagic, ... Many family hase loste they land in this are after the serbian army has ocupaide this are, and the albaniens was deporte to Kosovo or Turkei (somebody hase a part of family in Kosovo, whho diden have must go to Turkie or to take the prefix in his name "-vic" and to declaed himself als muslim). If you need a document about thate you must see the document of the Constatinopel and Ottomas "defter" or better ask akademik Rexhep Qosja or the poet Esad Mekuli or let the Armend Rexhepagiqi sing the song from his father if you like the new art see the film from regisor Isa Qosja "Rojet e Mjegullës" and you are going to understande and get your documents.--Hipi Zhdripi 10:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah balh, everyone's an Albanian, but they just don't know it...--estavisti 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi please try to learn bettert english. What you wrote here i don't understand so good. You don't have to tell here what a bastards Serbians are and why your gone from Kosovo. This is no subject for this page.

To say: Serbian and Montenegro never has recognised Sandak as a atonom state or union/whatever. Now, Serbia and Montenegro are both independance states and so Sandak is no more.

To say: nobody has ever recognizes Sandak. Not the former SerbianMontenegrin government and also not the independent governments of independent Serbia and independant Montenegro.

This wiki is opened to provocate Serbian and Montenegrin people and to claim this provinces.

Weel i think it's a good idea to close this wiki of Sandak because it's based on rumors, phantasy and ideas from almost Bosnian pleople.

SerbiaAndMontenegro 09:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wonderful World of Islam - As the Islamists Take Over Sandzak

Taken from and article in Political Mavens "Ottoman Empire Reasserting Itself in Kosovo" By Julia Gorin:

As a source in the area reported to me, the latest news from Serbian TV is that in Sandzak there has begun Taliban-style forced female circumcision of wives.

Here's a link to the [article] http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2006/10/31/ottoman-empire-reasserting-itself-in-kosovo/

Isn't this a wonderful advancement of "civilization" in the Balkans ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkress (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrijevica

Andrijevica is not in Sandžak!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.104.67 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some say that it is, some say that it is not (same could be said for Plav, by the way). However, Sandžak is here presented in its wider possible meaning, i.e. including Andrijevica and Plav. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that, as Sandzak is an informal geographic region, there are no set borders, as is usually the case with such regions? Nikola 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is case with most Serbian geographical regions like Banat, Mačva, Šumadija, etc - none of them have official borders, but are rather informal. PANONIAN (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether Andrijevica is in Sandžak (I am inclined to think that it and Plav are not), but it's confusing having a map that thinks it is, used to illustrate an article that thinks it's not. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

History

An anonymous editor (124.185.128.12 on 2007-03-28) deleted some text here:

In the Middle Ages the region was part of the Serb state of Raška. The capital of Raška was the city of Ras, located near present day Novi Pazar. The region was later part of the subsequent Serb states, until it was conquered by the Bosnian Kingdom in the 14th century, under which it was finally occupied by the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century.

(I have bolded the deletion).

I have no idea whether the old or the new is accurate: the article on Bosnian Kingdom doesn't seem to say one way or the other, and my ancient Britannica is no help. But anonymous edits like this (i.e. changing the meaning) worry me. Someone please check this.

FJPB 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

According to my historical atlas, not whole Sandžak, but its western part belonged to the Bosnian Kingdom in this time. PANONIAN (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad figures

How could there be 58,898 Bosniaks in the Montenegrin Sandzak, when there are 48,184 Bosniaks in all of the Republic of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong - it is 63,272, See:

Total of Montenegrins, Muslims by nationality, Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Bosniaks, Roma, others. (Others did not declare their nationality, no data is available).

Montenegro 672656 273366 40,64% 28714 4,27% 201892 30,01% 47682 7,09% 7062 1,05% 63272 9,41% 2875 0,43% 8376 1,25% 27715 4,12% 10532 1,57% 615035 380467 61,86% 89614 14,57% 57453 9,34% 40415 6,57% 6244 1,02% 0 0,00% 3282 0,53% 0,00% 943 0,15% 6076 0,99% PANONIAN (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got bad data. That was the official result of the census, but afterwards it was corrected. According to it Montenegro had precisely and only 620,145 citizens. --PaxEquilibrium 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not exactly bad data, but first census results. Yes, you might be correct that final results should be used, but unfortunately, I have no final results for each municipality to calculate Sandžak population based on those results. So, I am afraid that we have to use first results, until we find final ones. PANONIAN (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have final ones. Here:

Ethnic composition according to the 2003 census:

• Montenegrins: 267,669 (43.16%)
• Serbs: 198,414 (31.99%)
• Bosniaks: 48,184 (7.77%)
• Albanians: 31,163 (5.03%)
• Muslims: 24,625 (3.97%)
• Croats: 6,811 (1.1%)
• Romanies: 2,601 (0.42%)
• Yugoslavs: 1,860 (0.3%)
• Macedonians: 819 (0.13%)
• Slovenes: 415 (0.07%)
• Hungarians: 362 (0.06%)
• Russians: 240 (0.04%)
• Egyptians: 225 (0.04%)
• Italians: 127 (0.02%)
• Germans: 118 (0.02%)
• others: 2,180 (0.35%)
• undeclared/undefined: 26,906 (4.34%)
• regional affiliation: 1,258 (0.2%)
• not known: 6,168 (0.99%)

Pljevlja for example, has 35,806 citizens:

• 21,522 Serbs
• 7,704 Montenegrins
• 2,913 Muslims
• 1,865 Bosniaks
• 49 Yugoslavs
• 16 Croats
• 11 Macedonians
• 8 Albanians
• 6 Russians
• 4 Slovenes
• 3 Hungarians
• 3 Germans
• 1 Italian
• 68 others
• 1,437 undeclared/undefined
• 26 regionally affiliated
• 170 unknown

Bijelo Polje has 50,284 citizens:

• 20,275 Serbs
• 11,377 Bosniaks
• 7,936 Muslims
• 8,936 Montenegrins
• 133 Romanies
• 45 Croats
• 31 Albanian
• 24 Yugoslavs
• 22 Macedonians
• 14 Russians
• 9 Germans
• 7 Slovenes
• 1 Hungarian
• 69 others
• undeclared/undefined: 847
• regionally affiliated: 4
• unknown: 554

And lastly, Berane had 35,068 citizens:

• 16,309 Serbs
• 8,950 Montenegrins
• 5,662 Bosniaks
• 2,301 Muslims
• 119 Romanies
• 72 Yugoslavs
• 46 Croats
• 36 Albanians
• 24 Macedonians
• 6 Russians
• 4 Slovenes
• 2 Italians
• 2 Hungarians
• 1 Egyptian
• 1 German
• 67 others
• 1,188 undeclared/undefined
• 7 regionally affiliated
• 271 unknown

Well, that is not enough - I also need data for Rožaje, Plav and Andrijevica and then I can calculate population of Montenegrin Sandžak based on final results. Do you have data for those municipalities too? PANONIAN (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I do not need data for all ethnic groups, only of 4 largest: Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Muslims. PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grbsandzaka.svg

Image:Grbsandzaka.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Removed

Hi all, I have removed Kosovo from the maps, as it is independent from Serbia...--_Arbër ^{Let's talk} 14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.135.156 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Armes

Why did you remove the coat of armes of the Bosniaks of Sanjak?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.199.211.64 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

thats all!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PPx9diQKs0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.129 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

prijepolje

prijepolje is considered in Montenegro however it's in Serbia. 85.105.67.11 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Language tags

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)

Another Issue

@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)

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)

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)

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)

So are you fine with that @AzorzaI? AlexBachmann (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Alright, thank you for the response. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

I agree, I now let the etymology section reflect on the name and its variants. --Azor (talk). 07:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)