Talk:Sanjak of Elbasan

Source misrepresentation

The Voyniks weren't added and the quarters section was misrepresented, while the language section was completely disregarded.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

the quarters section was misrepresented? Let us see who misinterpreted the source:

the source	my text	text by ZjarriRrethues
has 18 Muslim quarters and 10 infidel Greek and Albanian and Latin quarters	had 18 quarters with Muslim population and 10 quarters populated by Greeks, Albanians and Latins.	had 18 quarters with Muslim population and 10 quarters populated by an Orthodox and Roman Catholic population

Your misinterpretation of the source could mislead the readers to believe there were no other nationality living in Elbasan except Albanians. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Antid. read the language details of Celebi. He says that no Franks were allowed to enter the town and yet there was a Latin quarter i.e it's a work of 1670, so don't misrepresent its terms.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not interpret Čelebija's words at all, you did. Evlija did not write that Latin is equal to Franks. And even if he did, Evlija Čelebija is primary source in this case. Look what Wikipedia policy says Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Therefore the information from the source should not be (mis)interpreted at all, like you did. It is obvious from above presented table that the only version of the text which follows above mentioned wikipedia policy is my version of text. If you can provide some secondary reliable source written by contemporary historian who interprets Evlija's words according to your interpretation then please do so. Otherwise I will return my version of text which is the only version "supported by the source". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't IDHT and read the policy. You can't use Celebi without at least partial interpretation because everything attributed to him would contradict itself i.e if the Franks, whose language is Latin, aren't allowed to enter the city then there can be no Latin quarter. That being said why did you add again dhe WP Serbia tag? According to your definition all of Poland's settlements should be under WP Germany. Btw it couldn't have been both a center of Islam in the early 16th century and have Christian population of over 90%.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@ZjarriRrethues, will you please be so kind to look at the source and explanation in note num 8. What does it say about meaning of the word "Latin" used in this work of Čelebija?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Please don't IDHT and read the policy. You can't use Celebi without at least partial interpretation I did read the policy. It still says:"interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."
2. why did you add again dhe WP Serbia tag? Todays Poland's settlements are not occupied by Germany. If there is article about some city in Poland during WWII then it would be under WP Germany too. This is article of former administrative unit of Ottoman Empire which was occupied by Kingdom of Serbia for almost a year, even incorporated in its legal system and administration. This is not article about modern Berat.
3. Btw it couldn't have been both a center of Islam in the early 16th century and have Christian population of over 90%. Will you please be so kind to explain this remark? The text of the article mention significant percentage of Muslim population about 150 years after the early 16th century.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Antid. Whole Poland was under Nazi Germany for 5 years in WWII, but this does not mean that Poland article should be under Germany tag. By doing so we create much confusion and we should keep it simple.Aigest (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Serbia?

How is this related?! Ok for Ottoman WikiProject but there is no connection with WP:Serbia. You should be careful to put appropriate tags on the articles. It creates much confusion. Aigest (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I already explained how this is related to WPSerbia in my comment in section above this one. This is my last comment regarding this issue because I don't intend to lose my time and energy on it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fix

Note that the current treatment is wrong. Its existence was extended by the Organic Statute of Albania that included a "Sanjak of Elbasan" in the Principality of Albania for the next decade or so of its existence. — LlywelynII 05:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)