Talk:Red Croatia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality/context
First of all, this article goes into great length explaining why one should believe that Red Croatia existed, without ever mentioning (a) what "Red Croatia" means, or (b) why it matters whether it existed or not.
Second, it appears that the bulk of this article is an attempt to prove the historical priority of Croats over Serbs. I don't want to get into this issue at all, but (except for a token wave of the hand in the last paragraph) there is no effort to present the other side of the issue or even to acknowledge that there is controversy about it. For example, "Pop Dukljanin wrote what he saw and interpreted, with honesty, and because of that he couldn't have not told the truth." Well, maybe so, but perhaps there are some historians who have analyzed his work differently, and Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting the reliability of this one source unless there is a clear historical consensus.
--Russ Blau (talk) 12:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- This is just a belated backlash against abuse from another person that has been documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker. I agree that we need to curb both. (On related note, I accidentally missed some edits at Dalmatia that introduced a fair bit of bias. Mental to-do note...) --Joy [shallot] 13:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok Russ , Thanks for the suggestions and the spelling corrections . I added two parts to this page , the meaning of red croatia and the controversy . i hope this makes it more neutral in your opinion . thanx. --206.39.111.20 14:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I rehauled it some more and it should be better. We might want to move the POV-related templates to the bottom sections now. Russ? --Joy [shallot] 12:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow! This is an entirely different article than the one I commented on yesterday, and dramatically better. Good work! (Incidentally, User:206.39.111.20, for your information, the customary style in English is to place spaces after the period, comma, and other punctuation, not before.) --Russ Blau (talk) 15:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Joy , thanks for the clean up . Looks great . Obviously I'm not the best at presentation . I just gathered the information and whipped the page up pretty fast . I was hoping someone would contribute to make it look good , I thank you for the help. RussBlau , thanx for the the advice . =)--206.39.111.20 18:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] == OK ==
I think that that "disputed" should be removed now. HolyRomanEmperor 18:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This sections is highly NPOV. It must be stated that it talks nonsence! HolyRomanEmperor 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It mentions of two large, huge 12th Century states. Red Croatia (Dalmatia) and Croatia (Pannonia) and Serbia is making a little more than half of Croatia; while Red Croatia is the entire Adratic Balkan coastline. This is most probably a greatly exaggerated description of the two Croatian states before union under Tomislav - Dalmatia (Prince Borna) and Pannonia (Prince Ljudevit Posavski) HolyRomanEmperor 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
I wonder if this stuff was ever published before or is it the author's personal research? Looks like a typical original research to me. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The article is now no longer based on original research. Exept the error that Pagania wasn't a part of Red Croatia, the article is OK now. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not original research, this concept has been used in history books in Croatia and is a valid topic to describe, even if it is waaay obsolete. I'm removing the marker. --Joy [shallot] 11:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I totally agree with you. I never said that it's original research. It just had numerious inconsistencies that I removed that were original research and so many irrelevancies. The actual existence of a Red Croatia is accepted everywhere (except in the most irrelevant of biased sources like politicians or nationalism-bombarded encyclopediae...) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] '== Red Croatia did exist =='
The truth is that a Red Croatia did exsit. Fist of all the croats settled in croatia around 7th century. when they settled in croatia land was clamied where no peopele lived. That was states of White Croatia, Pannoska Croatia, Red Croatia and Bosnia. second of all when the croats settled there was another tribe with them called Hirviti. They settled in Red Croatia today called Hezegovina, Montenagro and the croatian island of Dubrovnick. But remember that Red Croatia was a Seperate country from Croatia. --Marbus2 5 14:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but where are the sources for that? Additionally, both Croats and Serbs split into two groupations - those who came (White Croats and White Serbs) and those who stayed in the Slavic homeland (Red Croats and Lusatian Serbs) - oddly how this occurred. The Croatian civilisation in Eastern Europe stayed alive in the following several centuries, which some explain by them migrating to the southern dalmatian principalities. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a really bad article, this needs to be refined pronto.
- Then you do it. :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
