Jump to content

Talk:Narentines: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
DAI was misrepresented here by certain user(s). Without all criticism, that scientific community has been writing for a whole century. <br>
DAI was misrepresented here by certain user(s). Without all criticism, that scientific community has been writing for a whole century. <br>
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. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] ([[User talk:Kubura|talk]]) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
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. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] ([[User talk:Kubura|talk]]) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
*I am going to repeat the facts:<br>- the only historic source about Pagania is the Porphyrogenitus' work <br>- all the text that is not based on the De Administrando Imperio in this article is utter nonsense<br>- Porphyrogenitis never mentioned language of the Serbs inhabitating Pagania<br>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 verry idea to improve or write anything and ever here.--[[User:I am Mario|I am Mario]] ([[User talk:I am Mario|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
*I am going to repeat the facts:<br>- the only historic source about Pagania is the Porphyrogenitus' work <br>- all the text - which is not based on the De Administrando Imperio in this article - is utter nonsense<br>- 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<br>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.--[[User:I am Mario|I am Mario]] ([[User talk:I am Mario|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 1 September 2008

--I am Mario (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject iconCroatia Stub‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wortless article

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
    - 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]