From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Croatia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Makarska is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Your Web Site![edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to questionable historical information pertaining to the Town of Makarska and the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods.

Wikipedia States: In the 7th century the region between the Cetina and Neretva was occupied by the Slavs, who established the Neretva Principality, with Mokro (Makarska) as its administrative centre. The town was mentioned in the year 950 by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos as a city in Pagania (Neretva) settled by Serbs (including Split, Sinj, Vrgorac, Trogir, Omis and Makarska with islands of Brac, Hvar, Stari Grad, Vis).

The article here is using the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such when concerning the referencing information about the people in that region. 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 only of Serbian decent which clearly is incorrect. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region.

There are other discrepancies in this document 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 and its relation to Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt. Why hasn't other information been represented from that period of history, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Venetian Republic, The Vatican 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?

Regards (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are free to edit the article to make appropriate changes. You have made a case that De Administrator Imperio does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria.
However, be wary of false accusations; there is nothing politically motivated here. Please read the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Also be careful about the fallacy of composition by claiming that some flaws in that source discredits everything else in that source. You admit that some sections of the book are regarded as genuine by historians. That tells me the source is fair to cite in this article, at least those parts that historians consider reliable. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Amatulic fallacy of composition does not apply here. Have you read the chapters concerned? Chapters 30, 31 and 32. There are studies, which are available out there (if you wish you could check them out). In my opinion those controversial chapters pertaining to Dalmatia from De Administrando Imperio cannot be used as a source for factual information. They also contradict the ethnic demographics of that region (why is this the case?). If De Administrando Imperio is mention it should be placed in its context (rewrites of myths/ historical blunders etc). If you have not read the chapters please do so and tell me what is your opinion, I’ll be more than happy to read them. (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the source; my previous answer was based on Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and reliability. I see you made a change to the article, and I have no argument with your change. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)