Talk:De Administrando Imperio: Difference between revisions
178.223.72.121 (talk) |
178.223.72.121 (talk) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
which is the latest and greatest Moravcsik-Jenkins work. Why to replace it by some 1967 edition in the Sources section? |
which is the latest and greatest Moravcsik-Jenkins work. Why to replace it by some 1967 edition in the Sources section? |
||
If the article is based on the best edition-translation what use of mentioning some efforts made by almost anonymous Croats in 1910 and |
If the article is based on the best edition-translation what use of mentioning some efforts made by almost anonymous Croats in 1910 and 1931? |
||
Then what use of mentioning Kreutz and Zivkovic if these two authors are touching only a very narrow part of the book content? |
Then what use of mentioning Kreutz and Zivkovic if these two authors are touching only a very narrow part of the book content? |
||
At the end, proposal: If someone wants to talk about Serbs and Croats history as given in the DAI, let him write a new article, DAI and Serbs and Croats. Then Zivkovic and Ferjancic, Manojlović and Hauptmann could come in play as authors.--[[Special:Contributions/178.223.72.121|178.223.72.121]] ([[User talk:178.223.72.121|talk]]) 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:17, 21 November 2018
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A few questions
Up to this version the article content was based on
De Administrando Imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, edited by Gy. Moravcsik and translated by R. J. H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington D. C., 1993
which is the latest and greatest Moravcsik-Jenkins work. Why to replace it by some 1967 edition in the Sources section?
If the article is based on the best edition-translation what use of mentioning some efforts made by almost anonymous Croats in 1910 and 1931?
Then what use of mentioning Kreutz and Zivkovic if these two authors are touching only a very narrow part of the book content?
At the end, proposal: If someone wants to talk about Serbs and Croats history as given in the DAI, let him write a new article, DAI and Serbs and Croats. Then Zivkovic and Ferjancic, Manojlović and Hauptmann could come in play as authors.--178.223.72.121 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)