Talk:Narentines: Difference between revisions

Croatia Stub‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1; till January 1, 2008

Archives

Archive 2; till August 6, 2008

This article, as written, is completely wortless. On one account - it qoutes (incompletely) the Porphyrogenitus' work, on another - denies its accuracy. All other 'sources' are not supporting frivolous intenitons of editors to put history of Pagania into context of history of Dalmatia or Croatia. Pagania, as a medieval state, is mentioned only by Porphyrogenitus - there is no other historic sources that might be used to support this subject, as it was attempted here. Also, Porphyrogenitus mentioned that inhabitants of this medieval state were descendants of the Serbs - which was removed from the text.--I am Mario (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In article is writen that inhabitants of this medieval state were South Slavs because of March 2008 wiki compromise with which all nationalistic edit warring has ended.

On 1 side we era having Porphyrogenitus word that they are Serbs or other side they are speaking Čakavian dialect of Old Croatian because of which they are Croats. This is creating little problem (like other similar stuff) so it is writen that they are South Slavs.

If you look for other similar interesting comments about Porphyrogenitus work you must read article Duklja in which is writen that inhabitants are Croats which has come under command of Serbian Unknown Archont ??? --Rjecina (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DAI was misrepresented here by certain user(s). Without all criticism, that scientific community has been writing for a whole century.
Those explanations were and are enough for a serious scholar or student, but for a banned troll (very refined one, many users have never recognised him as such person) that kidnapped this article - it has never been. Unfortunately, and for many contributors and admins (that dealt with this article), that simply couldn't or didn't want to understand the matter. Kubura (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to repeat the facts:
  - the only historic source about Pagania is the Porphyrogenitus' work
  - all the text - which is not based on the De Administrando Imperio in this article - is utter nonsense
  - unreliability and inaccuracy of the Porphyrogenitus' work is another nonsense coming from some Croatian scribes out of which two of them (Draganovic, Mandic) were priests. G. Ostrogorsky in his History of the Byzanine State, says explicitly: Recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the account of Constantine VII which, though embroidered with legendary details, is in essence thoroughly reliable
  - Porphyrogenitus never mentioned language of the Serbs inhabitating Pagania; it is infantile to claim (out of blue) that Serbs did not speak their own language
  This article, as written, just illustrates why Wikipedia is disqualified as a source of scholar/scientific knowledge by American (- and worldwide, too) high schools, colleges, and universities. Wikipedia, following its own credo saying that everyone can contribute to it - does not attract people of serious and proven academic background to contribute anything. Seeing your eventual Wikipedia work trampled by ignorants, altered to the utter nonsense, forcing you to defend it against people of no knowledge and of no editorial ethics at all - is something that blocks the very idea to improve or write anything and ever here.--I am Mario (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are Mario? Are you sure? Do you have other names too? Many of it?

DAI is contradictorious concerning Slavic settlers there. People of serious and proven academic background should know it. Nobody says that Porphyrogenitus mentioned language of the "Pagania" inhabitants. It's simply that local dialects in the Southern Dalmatia contributed to Croatian language and Croatian dialects, there's nothing to connect it to Serbian, there are no archeological proofs for this connection, there is no tradition of any kind to make such connection, there is no memory or vernacular history, legends, anything to connect "Pagans" to Serbs, etc... There's only highly productive mythomania machinery with blind followers who recognise only what they like to. Thesis like "the Narentines - lost Serbian tribe", based on 0 (zero) scientific proofs, but so desperately repeated by "non-ignorants" like you are. Many claims of this machinery are disputed, but its followers faced with reality usually react like you do. Zenanarh (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia this is Greater Serbia made up history or it's just edited in such a way so it looks good. Also it can to be used politicaly for the wrong reasons. Nothing to do with real history. Anyone from that part of the world knows that this is wrong. Is Wikipedia part of some political agenda? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.253.195 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to some of the historical information on it’s web site. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the historical section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated.

The article is uses the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]