Razgovor:Samuilo (car)

Izvor: Wikipedija
Prijeđi na navigaciju Prijeđi na pretraživanje
Ovo je stranica za razgovor za raspravu o poboljšanjima na članku Samuilo (car).
Rad na člancima

POV-pushing, non-scientific sources and fringe theories[uredi]

There is a consensus on almost all national Wikipedia versions that the so called Bulgarian interpretation is prevalent among non-Bulgarian scholars:

According to the majority of non-Bulgarian Historians Sameul's realm was Bulgarian:

  • Срђан Пириватрић, "Самуилова држава. Обим и карактер", Византолошки институт Српске академије науке и уметности, посебна издања књига 21, Београд, 1997, 133-144.
  • Ivo Banac, „The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics“, 1988, Cornell University Press, "The Macedoine": "Both the Greeks and the Bulgars could claim far deeper roots than the Serbs, pointing to Macedonia's place in Byzantine and medieval Bulgarian empires long before Serbian conquest (the Bulgar periods were roughly from Presian to Samuil's successors, 836 – 1018, and again in intervals during the Second Bulgarian empire, about 1197 – 1246, 1257 – 1277)."
  • Steven Runciman, "A history of the First Bulgarian Empire", Book III THE TWO EAGLES, CHAPTER III The end of an empire: "In the west of Bulgaria, at the time of the Russian invasions, there lived a count or provincial governor called Nicholas. By his wife Rhipsimé he had four sons, whom he named David, Moses, Aaron, and Samuel; to the world they were collectively known as the Comitopuli, the Count’s children. Of what province Nicholas was governor we do not know, nor when he died. By the time of the abdication of Tsar Boris, his sons had succeeded to his influence; and to them the Western Bulgarians looked to preserve their independence."
  • Ф. И. Успенский, "История Византийской империи. Период Македонской династии (867-1057)", Москва, "Мысль", 1997, Глава XXI "Начало войны с Болгарией" стр. 397-407, Глава XXIII Греко-болгарская война. Подчинение Болгарии" стр. 415-429.
  • Лев Диакон, "История", Издательство "Наука", Москва, 1988, комментарий М. Я Сюзюмова и С. А. Иванова, стр. 220.
  • Г. Г. Литаврин, "Раннефеодальные государства на Балканах VI-XII вв.", Академия наук СССР, Институт славяноведения и балканистики, Москва, Издательство "Наука", 1985, Глава четвертая "Формирование и развитие болгарского раннефеодального государства (Конец VII - начало XI в.)", Последний период истории Первого болгарского царства, стр. 178-181.
  • Dimitri Obolensky, „Byzantium and the Slavs“, 1994, St Vladimir's Seminary Press, page 322.
  • Летопис Попа Дукљанина, глава XXXIII: "U to vrijeme u bugarskom narodu se uzdignu neki Samuil, koji je zapovijedio da ga zovu carem, i vodio je mnogo ratova protiv Grka, koje izbači iz čitave Bugarske, tako da u njegovo vrijeme oni nijesu više smjeli da se približe toj strani."

Still more, www.macedonium.org is not a scintific source and can't be used as a source of second hand quotations. There are other strange problems in the last version, for example according to Steven Runciman Samuel's realm was Bulgarian:

A history of the First Bulgarian Empire
Book III THE TWO EAGLES
CHAPTER III
The end of an empire
In the west of Bulgaria, at the time of the Russian invasions, there lived a count or provincial governor called Nicholas. By his wife Rhipsimé he had four sons, whom he named David, Moses, Aaron, and Samuel; to the world they were collectively known as the Comitopuli, the Count’s children. [1] Of what province Nicholas was governor we do not know, nor when he died. By the time of the abdication of Tsar Boris, his sons had succeeded to his influence; and to them the Western Bulgarians looked to preserve their independence.

Runciman doesn't think that Samuel's realm was Macedonian, but he was cited as a supporter of the Macedonian theory. Rather bizarre.

I do not think that the last version could be accepted as neutral. According to the rules of Wikipedia we should not represent a fringe theory as equally influential. Greetings, Historian (razgovor) 14:36, 4. listopada 2009. (CEST)

The problematic version was restored without any explanation and discussion. Why? Historian (razgovor) 15:29, 4. listopada 2009. (CEST)