Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Croatia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion
Well - over 50% is not original research. However, it deals with information that are not even close relevant to the subject - or incorrect.

For instance, it says Red Croatia (Latin: Croatiam Rubeam, Croatian: Crvena Hrvatska), was a name that several medieval documents designated to the initial Slavonic states in southern parts of Dalmatia: the duchies of Hu===m/Zahumlje, Pagania/Narenta, Travunia, and Duklja. However, as you can see on Pagania, Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje; Pagania is no where mentioned as a part. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''Duvno field was the site of the crowning of Croatian king Tomislav in the 920s. The town of Duvno in western Bosnia is now called Tomislavgrad in honor of his coronation.'' Where is the relevancy here? It only refers to the actual city of Duvno - nothing to do with Red Croatia itself. (the subject) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC) ...says in the article that it shows the territories of Read Croatia - it doesn't. As discussed, Pagania was never a part of Read Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it says ''Surbia and Bosnia are used as only geographic locations and not ethnic meanings. The region known as Surbia is divided from Raška and Bosnia, it covers a small area which is on the outskirts of the old Roman providence of Dalmatia. The chronicle does not refer to Serbs or Bosnians in the ethnic sense. That is WP:POV, what says that Croatia'' cannot be used only as a geographical location? Additionally, the region of Surbia wasn't "divided from", but "composed of" Rascia and Bosnia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

He in Chapter 30 also notes Croats setting up a powerful military presence in these regions and extracting taxes from the local populace in the southern Dalmatian dutchies. This is not correct, please see De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 30 - you will see that it confirms no such thing. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''In chapter 32 about the Serbs, Porphyrogenitos describes an identical settlement of Serbs but specifically notes that Croats settled in these regions first. Porphyrogenitos mentions Serb settlements in Travunia and Hum but makes no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja.''

Again - incorrect. Please see [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Administrando_Imperio#32._Of_the_Serbs_and_of_the_country_they_now_dwell_in. De Administrando Imperio, Chapter 32]. You will see that there is no mention that Croats inhabited the region first. Additonally, Serbs inhabited Zahumlje and Pagania (as you can see). Also - of what relevancy is no mention of Serb settlements in Duklja to Red Croatia? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''In Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio, the description of the Serbs suggests that the Serbs were not regarded as an ethnicity but rather as a social class. The Byzantines regarded the Serbs as social servants and even slaves.''

Review that chapter of DAI - it says that Serbs means slaves in the language of the Romei (Greeks) means Slaves and not vice-versa as presented in the article. The other sentence is WP:POV and has again - no relevancy on the actual subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbs probably have not been significant in this region until Croat king King Tomislav gave them a refuge to flee the Bulgarians. - WP:No_original_research; and together with Chapter 32 of the De Administrando Imperio suggest that Bulgarian Czar Simeon I scattered the Serbs into Croatia and Bulgaria after an unsuccessful Bulgarian military advance against Croatia. makes no relevancy on the subject of Red Croatia. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

References in Scylitza's chronicle
''The notion of Croats in Duklja is supported with the testimony from Byzantine Chronicler John Scylitza where he writes:

" Dukljan King Michael rules over those who call themselves Croats." ''

Indeed correct - but has absolutly no relevancy to the subject of Red Croatia. While, The descendants of these Croats are considered today's Bokelji. is Original Research. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

References by Stefan Nemanja
It says here: ''In Stefan Nemanja's declaration in 1198 he writes how he forcefully expanded the Serbian state to include Duklja. He writes:

"i priobretoh' od' Mor'ske zemle Zetu i s' gradovi, a od ' Arbanas ' Pilot', a od' Gr'c'ske zemle Lab' s' L'planem..." [3]''

It has absolutly no relevancy to the subject. AFAIC - he only decreased Duklja's autonomy (which was already subjected "legally" to him). Please see Duklja if you need details. Additionally, that forcefully is - although even true to an extent - WP:POV. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

References in Dandolo's article
''A Chronicle of Dalmatia by Venetian writer named Andrea Dandolo (1300-1354) gives evidence that where geographic Surbia is a geographic designation of the Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom.

(Keep in mind Dalmatian province extends inland to Bosnia)

Dandolo writes:

"Moderni autem maritimam totam vocant Dalmaciam, montana autuem Chroaciam..." [4]

"The whole Mediterranean coast (Adriatic) belongs to Dalmatia, The mountainous part is Croatia "''

That keep in mind is WP:POV (intentional propaganda) and unencylopedia. Not to mention that this sentence to the up has no relevancy with Red Croatia itself - but is actually an incinuation. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion and comparison of sources
I don't want to even get near the Original Research (and unsourcedness) of this paragraph. It also claims that Croat historians and most Bosniak historians put faith in the document especially when it regards distribution of land among the peoples of the early medieval Balkans. If you see Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina - you will see that Bosniak historians discard the document as valuable.

This contrast Some may argue against the authenticity of the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja. and Many believe that the De Administrando Imperio is written from an obvious Byzantine bias. - is obviously taking a side.

''The Priest was not a Croat either but he was fluent in the Croatian language. He lived with Croats and thus was able to translate the Slavic chronicle of De Regno Sclavorum into Latin.'' The Croatian language was created in the late 18th century - all Slavs spoke the Church Slavonic up to then, and when the article was written, Old Slavic was still in some usage. Additionally, if you see Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, you may notice that it was written in Bar at the very end of the 12th century - If one views the History of Serbia - he/she will notice that Bar is deeply inside Serbia; so he would've spoken fluently the Serbian language - just, like I said - Croats and Serbs didn't speak a different language back then and it is Original research anyway. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''An old place name in modern-day Bosnia (which part of was geographic "Surbia") has the name Servintium (modern-day Bosanska Gradiška). This name was already designated before any Croats and other Slavs appeared on Balkan soil.'' This (irrelevant to the subject) - as many of the previously-mentioned - are dealing with showing of the article is to show that Serbs didn't live there - and not Red Croatia - which is the article's subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''The Chronicle furthermore regulates geographic "Bosnia", and part of Raška to the Lipa and Lab (together "Surbia") to the Croatian Kingdom. Bosnia and part of Raška are known as "Transmontana" which is also known as Zagorje in Croatian language. Original Croatian Zagorje included Bosnia (small land in southeast modern Bosnia) and the frontiers of Raška (part of modern Sandzak).'' - this is - aside from being Original Research - dealing with the Chronicle far more than it deals with Red Croatia. Should the article's name even be "Red Croatia"? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''The Serbs under Stefan Nemanja expanded their state to include Duklja (Montenegro) which Serbs named Zeta, Herzegovina, small parts of southern Dalmatia, and half of modern day Sandzak to the Lipa and Lab.

With Montenegro in particular, not even the De Administrando Imperio mentions the Serbs there prior to 1198.''

The first is incorrect and WP:POV - and both are irrelevant to subject. Again - not dealing with the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over "Red Croatia"
''Croat historians argue that the De Administrando Imperio gives direct contradictions. Many other historians also agree that the settlements described in chapter 32 of the Serbs seem like a copy of an earlier written chapter 31 of the Croats. Croat historians also accuse the De Administrando Imperio of having a Byzantine and pro-Serb bias in the later chapters 33 and 34 where it designates Hum and Travunia as Serb lands. They also argue that there are no historical documents prior to the 11th century that designate Duklja (large part of Montenegro) as a Serb territory. Croatian historians believe that Montenegro was forcefully conquered by the Serbs in the 12th century and Orthodox religion was forced on the populace. Croat nationalists believe most of the Orthodox Montenegrins and Herzegovians to be descendants of Red Croats and therefore "Orthodox Croats".''

Ehm - what does this have to do with Red Croatia - it deals with De Administrando Imperio - and should not be present here (not the subject). --HolyRomanEmperor 13:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

''Serb nationalists declare Montenegrin separatism as a direct product of Greater Croatian ideology. In the later half of the 20th century, a prominant Serb historian Dr. Slavenko Terzic had extreme criticism against his enemies whom he considered "Red Croats" particularly against the work of a Montenegrin Croat named Savic Markovic Stedimlija. Stedimlija between 1941 and 1944 in the pro fascist Independent State of Croatia published several books and articles promoting pro-Croat Montenegrin nationalism as well as several articles on the promotion of the "Croatian Orthodox Church." Stedimlija is accused of the systematic sabotage of Serbian history in Montenegro by Terzic due to Stedimlija's publishing of Red Croatian history which Terzic alleged was made only for the purpose of negating the Serb roots of Montenegrins.

Today, Montenegrin separatism is less based on Croatian nationalism and more due to economic problems facing the union between Serbia and Montenegro. There are still many Montenegrins today who declare themselves Serbs and very few that declare themselves Croats.''

Today, Montenegrin... - what does this have to do with Red Croatia? Anyway - the third paragraph to the up mentions that Hum and Travunia were Serb lands (again) - when DAI (De Administrando Imperio) actually says that Pagania and Zahumlje were Serbian lands (like I explained before). Travunia is the area of Serbian rule. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Keep and rewrite. Delete only if cannot be rewritten. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This belongs on the article's talk page, and not here. The nomination is in bad faith, and doesn't follow regular presidure. Keep and Cleanup Eivind 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be a content / POV dispute, not a question of whether an article on this subject should exist. If you think the article is in error, change it. Sandstein 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Arguments are clearly about the content. However, low marks on the Google test, and the article seems to put into doubt the very existence of "Red Croatia" (in a way that suggests it isn't a major controversy either), suggesting the article may be based entirely on original research. Fagstein 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Delete only if cannot be rewritten. Copy HolyRomanEmperor`s comments to discussion page of the article. --MaNeMeBasat 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sandstein. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.