Talk:Francesco Maurolico

Greek nationality

I dispute the fact the Francesco Maurolico was Greek. As a matter of fact, he was an Italian of Greek origin, born in Messina, Kingdom of Sicily. Furthermore, a single source with this claim "Sasaki, Chikara (2003). Descartes's mathematical thought. Springer. p. 43" is not enough to qualify him as Greek. The Encyclopedia Treccani lists him as Italian. (see in Italian: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-maurolico_(Dizionario-Biografico) Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If no one object that, I'll fix it. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Small objection in that he was not Italian either, he died almost 300 years before Sicily became part Italy. Please refer to English sources per WP:NONENG (a whole lot of them out there and none of them call Francesco Maurolico "Italian"[1]). Best we can call him is Sicilian. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr, honestly, why do you keep repeating this nonsense about the Italians over and over? According to you, no one born before 1861 can be considered Italian, is that right? You should rewrite the whole history of Italy then, and tell these historians below and the Trecanni's editors they're all wrong.

Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler by David C. Lindberg

“[…] Its ablest sixteenth-century practitioners were too Italians, Francesco Maurolico and Giovanni Battista Della Porta, and […]” Page 178 [2])

Excursions in Calculus‬: ‪An Interplay of the Continuous and the Discrete‬, Volume 13 by Robert M. Young

“[…] Although discovery of the method is usually attributed to Pascal, it appears that the first person to apply mathematical induction to rigorous proofs was the Italian scientist Francesco Maurolico in his […]” Page 15 [3])

A Transition to Advanced Mathematics: A Survey Course: A Survey Course by William Johnston

“[…] The first known proof by induction was given by the Italian mathematician Francesco Maurolico in 1575. […]” Page 230 [4])

The Tree of Knowledge: The Bright and the Dark Sides of Science by Claudio Ronchi

“[…] Two Italian astronomers and mathematicians, Francesco Maurolico (1494-1575) and Federico Commandino (1506-1575), […]” Page 62 [5])

Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell

“[…] The desire to revive the study of mathematics and repair ancient texts became an obsession for many Italian mathematicians. Francesco Maurolico (1494-1575) was one such man. […]” Page 109 [6])

The results are endless. There are plenty more confirming my point. I invite you to take a little longer searching for it. And please answer me: how can an essay prevail over an Encyclopedia? Besides, according to WP rules, the fact that it's written in Italian doesn't change a bit, as long as it's translated to English. And that's what I'll do right now. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point of WP:RS re:"an appropriate source for that content" i.e. your citing tangential mentions of the subject instead of articles specifically about the subject[7]. They are not considered reliable, for good reason. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How can a encyclopedia be a tangential mention? How can you dispute the fact that most scholars hold the view that he was Italian? You're pushing very hard now. As you have no point here, you're making thing up as you wish. Honestly, I'm getting tired of your dictatorship, of your frustrated attempt to diminish Italian heritage and achievements. Besides, all Wikipedia's versions list him as Italian, but "your" English one seems to known more than them all. This is original research. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am saying an encyclopedia listing is not a tangential mention, and the one I cited does not list him as "Italian". "diminish Italian heritage and achievements" --> Please note, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion so the opposite move of "inflating Italian heritage" goes against Wikipedia standards and can lead to sanctions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a terrible habit of contradicting yourself, don't you? If an encyclopedia is not a tangentional mention, how come my encyclopedia source was blatantly ignored [8])? Can you provide a WP policy that discredit an Italian language source? Will you able to do so? How about answering my latter question above? How can you dispute the fact that the vast majority of scholars of any nationality or language hold the view that he was Italian? Furthermore, the one you cited does not list him as non Italian either. If you go down the pages in this same book you'll find that Marin Mersenne was not listed as Frenchman [9]). So following your logic, he should not be considered French, right? Your arguments are pointless. And to conclude my view, I'm not promoting, "inflating Italian heritage" or anything like that. I wouldn't spend my precious time writing lies and inventing unfounded things. What's really the point in doing this? You instead should leave behind your anti-Italian feeling and be open minded for informations you don't know about it. You keep insisting in this nonsensical belief of Italians only after 1861. As an WP editor, you should be aware that history is not written by politicians or boundaries lines. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOENG pretty much answers one question. This (English) Google books search + WP:CHERRY answers another. I think that about covers it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer anything as usual. Actually, you keep running away from the facts. "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. The source you posted is not of equal quality or relevance as such the Encyclopedia Treccani. It's like comparing a single book to Encyclopedia Britannica, it doesn't make any sense. The Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Italian Biographical Dictionary) is the world's largest national biography compilation, it follows strict scientific criteria. Just to make an example, let's take a look at the bibliographical references regarding Francesco Maurolico from the "Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton":

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clagett, Marshall. “Francesco Maurolico and the Medieval Archimedes.” In Clagett, Marshall. Archimedes in the Middle Ages. 5 vols. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1964– 1984, vol. 3, ch. 5, pp. 749–1053. ——. “The Works of Francesco Maurolico.” Physis 16 (1974), 174–198. Lindberg, David C. “Laying the Foundations of Geometrical Optics: Maurolico, Kepler, and the Medieval Tradition.” In The Discourse of Light from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment: Papers Read at a Clark Library Seminar. Los Angeles: Clark Memorial Library, University of California, 1985, pp. 3–65. Moscheo, Rosario. Francesco Maurolico tra Rinascimento e scienza galileiana: Materiali e ricerche. Messina: Società messinese di storia patria, 1988.

And now the bibliography from the "Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani" concerning "Maurolico, Francesco":

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fonti e Bibl.: Antiche biografie del M. sono state riedite di recente, spesso arricchite di commenti, note e nuovi dati tratti da documenti d’archivio: D. Scinà, Elogio di F. M., Palermo 1808, ripubblicato da U. Bottazzini - P. Nastasi, Caltanissetta 1994; F. Maurolico jr, Vita dell’abbate del Parto d. F. M.…, Messina 1613 (ed. a cura di R. Moscheo, Messina 2002); P. Ansalone, Sua de familia opportuna relatio…, Venetiis 1662; G. Macrì, F. M. nella vita e negli scritti, Messina 1901; M. Amari, Storia dei musulmani in Sicilia, I, Catania 1933, p. 468. Tralasciando la bibliografia erudita, si segnalano i lavori più recenti sul M., a partire dalla voce di sintesi curata da A. Masotti, M. F., in Dictionary of scientific biography, a cura di Ch.G. Gillespie, IX, New York 1974, pp. 190-194; M. Clagett, The works of F. M., in Physis, XVI (1974), pp. 148-198; R. Moscheo, Un secolo di studi mauroliciani: bilanci e prospettive, in Arch. stor. messinese, s. 3, XXVI-XXVII (1975-76), pp. 267 s.; P.L. Rose, The Italian Renaissance of mathematics. Studies on humanists and mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo, Geneva 1976, pp. 159-184; R. Moscheo, Scienza e cultura a Messina tra ’500 e ’600: vicende e dispersione dei manoscritti autografi di F. M., in La rivolta di Messina (1674-1678) e il mondo mediterraneo nella seconda metà del ’600. Atti del Convegno… 1975, a cura di S. Di Bella, Cosenza 1979, pp. 435-474; M. Pavone, Saggio critico sulle opere di F. M., Ragusa 1987; R. Moscheo, F. M. tra Rinascimento e scienza galileiana. Materiali e ricerche, Messina 1988; Id., Scienza e cultura a Messina tra ’400 e ’500: eredità del Lascaris e filologia mauroliciana, in Nuovi Annali della Facoltà di magistero dell’Università di Messina, VI (1988), pp. 595-632; P.D. Napolitani, M. e Commandino, in Il Meridione e le scienze, secoli XVI-XIX. Atti del Convegno… 1985, a cura di P. Nastasi, Palermo 1988, pp. 281-316; R. Moscheo, Mecenatismo e scienza nella Sicilia del ’500. I Ventimiglia di Geraci ed il matematico F. M., Messina 1990; M.R. Lo Forte Scirpo, F. M.: autobiografia e sapienza alla fine del Medioevo, in L’autobiografia nel Medioevo. Atti del XXXIV Convegno storico internazionale, Todi… 1997, Spoleto 1998, pp. 307-330; R. Moscheo, I gesuiti e le matematiche nel secolo XVI. M., Clavio e l’esperienza siciliana, Messina 1998; Id., Fermenti religiosi e vita scientifica a Messina nel XVI secolo, in Sciences et religions de Copernic à Galilée (1540-1610). Actes du Colloque… 1996, Rome 1999, pp. 295-356; M. Zaggia, Tra Mantova e la Sicilia nel Cinquecento, I, Firenze 2003, passim; R. Moscheo, Polidoro ritrattista e l’iconografia mauroliciana, in Filosofia e scienze. Studi in onore di G. Cotroneo, Soveria Mannelli 2004, pp. 277-299. Problemi specifici di storia della matematiche sono trattati in S. Matton, Note sur l’alchimie dans la classification des sciences des arts de F. M.: suivie de l’édition de son «Rerum tractandarum index», in Chrysopoeia, IV (1990-91), pp. 283-306; R. Moscheo, L’insegnamento delle matematiche nell’antico Studium Messinese: F. M., in Annali di storia delle Università italiane, II (1998), pp. 123-145; P. D’Alessandro - P.D. Napolitani, I primi contatti fra M. e Clavio: una nuova edizione della lettera di F. M. a Francisco Borgia, in Nuncius, XVI (2001), 2, pp. 511-522; R. Bellè, I gesuiti e la pubblicazione dell’ottica di F. M., in Boll. di storia delle scienze matematiche, XXVI (2006), pp. 211-243; Id., Il corpus ottico mauroliciano. Origini e sviluppo, in Nuncius, XXI (2006), pp. 7-29. Studi condotti sui testi matematici, alcuni inediti, negli ultimi decenni: M. Clagett, F. M.’s use of Medieval Archimedean texts. The «De sphaera et cylindro», in Science and history. Studies in honor of Edward Rosen, Wroclaw 1978, pp. 37-52; D.C. Lindberg, Laying the foundations of geometrical optics: M., Kepler and the Medieval tradition, in Discourse of light from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. Papers read at a Clark Library Seminar… 1982, a cura di D.C. Lindberg - G. Cantor, Los Angeles 1985, pp. 3-65; C. Dollo, Astrologia e astronomia in Sicilia: da F. M. a G.B. Hodierna, 1535-1660, in Giorn. critico della filosofia italiana, VI (1986), 3, pp. 366-398; J. Cassinet, The first arithmetic book of Francisco M., written in 1557 and printed in 1575: a step towards a theory of numbers, in Mathematics from manuscript to print - 1300-1600. Proceedings… 1984, a cura di C. Hay, Oxford 1988, pp. 162-179; R. Moscheo, L’Archimede del M.: genesi, sviluppi ed esiti di una complessa vicenda editoriale in età barocca, in Archimede: mito, tradizione, scienza. Atti del Convegno, Siracusa-Catania… 1989, a cura di C. Dollo, Firenze 1992, pp. 111-164; K. Saito, Quelques observations sur l’édition des Coniques d’Apollonius de F. M., in Boll. di storia delle scienze matematiche, XIV (1994), 2, pp. 239-259; R. Tassora, I Sereni Cylindricorum libelli duo di F. M. e un trattato sconosciuto sulle sezioni coniche, ibid., XV (1995), 2, pp. 135-264; A. Taha - P. Pinel, Sur les sources de la version de F. M. des «Sphériques» de Ménélaos, ibid., XVII (1997), 2, pp. 149-198; G.P. Pasquotto, F. M.: il recupero della matematica antica e gli inizi dell’algebra, in Periodico di matematiche, s. 7, IV (1997), 4, pp. 51-74; P.D. Napolitani, Le edizioni dei classici: Commandino e M., in Torquato Tasso e l’Università. Relazioni presentate al Convegno tenuto a Ferrara… 1995, a cura di W. Moretti - L. Pepe, Firenze 1997, pp. 119-141; J.-P. Sutto, Le compendium du 5e livre des Eléments d’Euclide de F. M., in Revue d’histoire des mathématiques, VI (2000), pp. 59-94; D. Bessot, Ellipse conique et cylindrique chez F. M., in Histoire et épistemologie dans l’éducation mathématique. Actes du Colloque… 1999, II, Louvain 2001, pp. 147-166; P.D. Napolitani - J.-P. Sutto, F. M. et le centre de gravité du paraboloïde, in SCIAMVS, II (2001), pp. 187-250; i contributi sul M. in Medieval and classical traditions and the Renaissance of physico-mathematical sciences in the 16th century. Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of history of science, Liège… 1997, Turnhout 2001; L. Passalacqua, L’«Archimedes» di M.: il «De lineis spiralibus». Differenze e analogie con l’edizione di Basilea, Pisa 2002; V. Gavagna - R. Moscheo, I Theonis Datorum libelli duo di F. M., in Boll. di storia delle scienze matematiche, XXII (2002), 2, pp. 267-348; F. M. e le matematiche del Rinascimento: l’edizione critica di testi scientifici e la sfida delle nuove tecnologie, a cura di V. Gavagna - P.D. Napoletani, Pisa 2002.

Obviously the one you posted is not in the same "league". Besides all that, as I stated before, your reference doesn't list him as non-Italian either. The fact that is not explicitly printed "Italian" doesn't lead him to be a "non-Italian". He was born in Italy, raised in Italy, educated in Italy, always worked in Italy and spent his entire life in Italy. It's useless pushing on this discussion. I also showed to you, there are many others scientists articles (like Marin Mersenne) that doesn't explicitly expose their nationalities. About the second one, the vast majority of scholars regard him as Italian. I can publish here dozens of examples, it's no use. What's really your point? Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Marin Mersenne - lived in a 700 year old (1200 year old?) kingdom/region of "France". Francesco Maurolico - Lived on an island outside of and 300 years before the nation of "Italy". Don't really see the comparison. If you making some kind of semantic claim based on how many times you can spot him called "Italian" you should see WP:OR. I don't see it in a strict Google book search, vast majority of sources have him as "Born in Sicily to a Greek family". If you want to make a case for modern nationalities being linked to historical people then you are arguing in the wrong place, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What's your point now? You always change the focus when it suits you. Weren't you talking about the encyclopedia source? The Encyclopedia Treccani goes much deeper than anything you brought until now. Where did I claim that Marin Mersenne was not Frenchman? Of course he was. The point I raised is that he was not listed as "Frenchman" in the source you posted in the same way with Francesco Maurolico was not as italian. And last but not least, there are so many things I would like to discuss here in WP that I would have to spend all my life on line. In my short history here, I have already noticed hundreds of misleading informations taking for granted everywhere I go. What intrigues me is how a editor like you so unaware of world history and History of Italy keep writing as if had any clue about the subject. You gave me plenty of reasons to doubt your knowledge of nation, state, nationality and ethnicity. You write about things you have no idea, taking into account just what you believe to be so. Italy as a country, for example, is similar to Germany and at the same time different from France, United Kingdom and Russia. Because its cultural unification preceded the state unification, it was born as an ethnic nation and not as a multiethnic state. Italy as a nation, was not born in 1861, as you keep repeating as mantra, but in the high middle ages. It was one of the first European nations to be born, if not the first. The island of Sicily was part of this Italian nation when Francesco Maurolico was born and continue to be so today. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I won't explain (again) the concept of reliably sourcing over sourcing (or WP:CIVIL or WP:TPNO for that matter). Like I said, if you see something wrong bring it up at the relative MOS talk page (or the talk page of the administrator who just warned you). If its obviously a problem you should find some help there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Greek origin / Greek ethnicity?

I would like to leave a very important info unknown to most non Italian editors. Although many authors make mention of Maurolico being born to Greek parents, this is not accurate. The Encyclopedia Treccani states pretty clear [10]):

"Non è credibile quanto asserito nella più antica biografia del M. composta dal nipote omonimo (Maurolico jr, p. 1): che la famiglia sia giunta in Sicilia dalla Grecia, o più propriamente da Costantinopoli, dopo l’invasione turca del 1453. In realtà, è possibile retrodatare la presenza dei Maurolico in Sicilia, e segnatamente a Messina, fin dai tempi del Vespro; e un documento superstite di famiglia datato 1606 (in Ansalone) attesta il diritto della stessa a una cappella gentilizia nella chiesa di S. Giovanni Battista fin dagli anni Cinquanta del XV secolo, cosa possibile solo per casati di prestigio residenti da antica data."

"It is not credible to claim, in the oldest biography of Maurolico composed by his nephew of the same name (Maurolico Jr., p. 1), that the family arrived in Sicily from Greece, or more properly from Constantinople, after the Turkish invasion of 1453. In fact, it is possible to trace back their presence in Sicily, and in particular in Messina, from the time of the Sicilian Vespers, and a family's document dated 1606 attests to the right of the same in a chapel in the church of S. John the Baptist since the fifties of the fifteenth century, which is possible only for families of prestige residents from ancient times."

What is undisputable is that he was of Greek origin. But there are no evidences to confirm his supposed Greek ethnicity. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mno Bovi/ Polidoro da Caravaggio portrait

Restoring the portrait because it has a provenance written right on it (maurolici hace est effigies polidor. p. messa.), there is a secondary source interpreting that provenance (Portraits of doctors & scientists in the Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1973, page 239), and Caravaggio worked with Maurolico. Per questions in summary, Polidoro da Caravaggio's article ---> "His other works, as well as those of his partner, Maturino da Firenze, have mostly perished from exposure, as most were external decorations on the facades of palaces, but are known from many etchings by Pietro Santi Bartoli, Cherubino Alberti and others". (Seems common for this artist). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can write "After Caravaggio" on their pictures. If that provenance is accurate, there should be a sketch or painting by Caravaggio of Maurolico. Where is it? If it exists, that is what we should use. If it does not exist, then the provenance is a lie. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Counter-Reformations, wars, fires, floods, rats, weevils, family members that didn't want to store the crap. That's where the stuff went. The amount of art lost over the years is a broad topic. Some art history: there are very few artists from that period that have had their studio sketches, etc survive to the present day, Albrecht Dürer being the most notable of these. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)