Talk:Medieval principalities in southern Dalmatia

Historical issue

I have come to reliable sources that Pagania was in the later 12th century a component part of Croatia, but I have come to no source absolutely that it is under Stjepan I that they joined, in 1050. Perhaps anyone knows a source in precise? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not me, I just copy-pasted this stuff into a new article because History of Dalmatia is a huge mess and full of irrelevant stuff that's meant for new articles. I'm now working on a better organization of that text and a full cleanup of grammar & spelling. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Wikipedia Web Site!

I’ve undertook some research to examine the history of the articles on the “Medieval Dalmatian Principalities”. They all appear to be a politically motivated historical work. I also had a look at it’s writers (& their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements). I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings.

For example dictator worship, support for communist regime, anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago), atheistic declarations and so on. What is this all about? I am not declaring that all the writers are that way inclined but it seems to be that way. From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing politically imprisonment, torture etc?

Experience has taught me it’s best not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals. To put it succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths. Due to this contradiction, it appears these articles are politically motivated.

There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of questionable material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

"Medieval Dalmatian principalities", huh?
Original work. Some states got into these, and some didn't. How come that duchy of Littoral Croatia is not into this? Littoral Croatia was also on the area of Dalmatia, but as we see, it's not here.
"The Medieval Dalmatian principalities were Early Medieval states that existed in what was roughly considered southern Dalmatia.". First the whole Dalmatia is mentioned, but it appears that the text referres only to the southern ones. It is like creating article "European states", but instead of listing all of them, only the states on e.g. Scandinavian peninsula are listed.
What "principalities"? These were duchies.
Finally, it seems that someone intentionally evades the term Red Croatia (though, it does appear in one line in the article). Kubura (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)