Jump to content

Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Date

In the end, could we at least agree on his birthdate? --PaxEquilibrium 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Britannica and several other sources say he was born on May 18th. Tar-Elenion 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? What other sources? AFAIK, all the Croatian sources that I found point at May 26th. We should dig in and make a compromise regarding the date (at least). --PaxEquilibrium 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Croatian Wikipedia also says Ma 18th. I have yet to see a link where it says May 26th. Tar-Elenion 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. I don't see any article that puts it at May the 18th. I think it's an error (or perhaps, a "forgery & falsification" ;). Just search for yourself (and by the way, please read this talk page). --PaxEquilibrium 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hint: Enyclopedia Britannica. Tar-Elenion 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW I would suggest to you that you read the whole talk page and you will see that several people have said the same thing I have tried to point out to you - there is absolutly no verifiable source which connects Boscovich with anything Serbian. End of story. Tar-Elenion 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposition

Seeing how certain memebers (not to use some other word) are prone to fabrication to prove their nationalist views I would like to propose a compromise. This would mean removal of all association to various ethnic groups, in other words removal of the categories proclaiming him an Italian, Croatian (and/or Serbian) mathematician, philosopher, etc. This was already done at the Nicolaus Copernicus article due to similar dispute. The ethnicity issue would remain part of the article (with some rewriting) and this would hopefully prevent further revert-wars. This is something I am not doing lightly as there is absolutly no proof that the man had any connection with Serbia or Serb, but to show good will towards resolving this issue and to prevent such similar idiotic disputes in future I am willing to bend it. What say you? Tar-Elenion 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about, first, you stop repeating and repeating complete nonsense? Plenty of proofs of his Serbian origin are presented. Nikola 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Like for example? A myth about his father's origins from some obscure Serbian noble family is not a proof. Tar-Elenion 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is. And it's not the only thing that has been presented. Nikola 11:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the proposition is a good solution. @Nikola, pls view Tar-Elenion's proposition in good faith and give it due consideration. iruka 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would I view a proposition by a sockpuppeteer who claims that I am "prone to fabrication" in good faith? Categories could be removed but I am very of his "with some rewritting" part. Nikola 11:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am no socketpuppeteer, as proven by checkuser [1], however I am not sure about you and Paulcicero who made these fallacious and disgusting accusations. I will remind you that one of the main policies by Wikipedia is WP:AGF, as of now, you are showing none. The latter is also your position with evidence and verifiable sources. Tar-Elenion 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your short stay on Wikipedia is one of constant edit warring and lying on talk pages. As for good faith, you are showing none. Nikola 08:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is what they call "spinning the truth". Everyone looking at my contributions can see for themselves that I do not "edit-war" and that is pure slander. This all coming from a person who rejects a proposition in good faith and fails to provide a source according to WP:VERIFY. Tar-Elenion 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You are an (extreme?) edit-warrior, even we had that conversation before - and you cannot deny it (you should not deny it; after you were pointed at that direction numerous times); but that's not the point in 'ere. What are you doing, competing who has more reverts? Remember Wikipedia's rules: DO NOT COMMENT THE USER, BUT COMMENT THE CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLE. Stick to that & everything will be OK. --PaxEquilibrium 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I can deny and I will deny, becaue it simply is not true, anyone can see that from my contributions. Where have I been pointed out in the right direction? I still don't see a verifiable source. It wasn't me who was counting other people's reverts and commenting on other people, it is something Nikola did and what you are doing now. You said to come here to mediate, this doesn't really looks like mediation to me. Tar-Elenion 12:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit warring: 

# 14:26, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) List of Serbs (rm, these people are not Serbs)
# 14:25, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Slavica Ecclestone (rv)
# 14:15, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich
# 14:11, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Roger Joseph Boscovich (rv, provide source)
# 21:37, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich
# 21:31, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
# 21:23, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich (→Controversies, endless disputes)
# 21:21, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Roger Joseph Boscovich (rv, this is not a compromise, please provide the evidence that he had any connection with Serbia)
# 21:10, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich (→Controversies, endless disputes)
# 21:07, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Roger Joseph Boscovich (rv)
# 21:07, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Slavica Ecclestone (rv)
# 21:07, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Medieval Croatian state (rv) 
# 22:06, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) History of Croatia (rv)
# 22:06, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) House of Boshko (rv, nikola boskovic now has his own article) (top)
# 19:37, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Medieval Croatian state (rv, no they're not, there are appropriate articles dealing with the history of serbs)
# 19:36, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kingdom of Croatia (rv, no she's not)
# 19:35, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) History of Croatia (rv, this is not established truth)
# 19:34, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Slavica Ecclestone (rv, because you are challenging the current established version, discuss at talk page in future)
# 17:09, 24 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Slavica Ecclestone (rv, it is you who has the burden of proof)

My providing of source (and your lying): [2]. Nikola 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall I now post your reverts? I am quite sure there are far more of those in your history then in my. BTW I suggest you take a good look at these that you quoted, only the reverts at Slavica Ecclestone can be considered revert-warring, for which I admitted myself to a moderator and suffered the consequences which I completely deserved. What is the excuse for your revert-warring, not only on Slavica Ecclestone, but on at least 10 different articles? And I have already said more than enough about your "source". It is simply not verifiable. Can you understand English? Tar-Elenion 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering that I am on Wikipedia far longer than you, I too am quite sure that there are. The source I added is perfectly verifiable. You can go to any library in Serbia, and probably neighbouring countries, to find the book, and in addition to that, I have posted scans of relevant pages on this very talk page. I can understand English, but I can't understand how can one lie about content of a web page on that very web page and expect that anyone will believe him. Seriously, why are you doing it, and what are you hoping to achieve? Nikola 09:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but your source is not verifiable and that was pointed out to you several times in this thread and in the past, before I came. Also as I have pointed it out, this so called source (rather propaganda) certainly doesn't belong in the same sentence with the other sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Also it is not neutral because if so then we would have 20 sources stating Boscovich was a Croat, not two. Post a verifiable source and we shall be done with this, or you can accept this generous compromise. If not I can always ask for community's opinion and mediation on thisd, be sure that you will be proven wrong if we follow this course of action. Tar-Elenion 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not sorry, and the source given by me is verifiable, and no one pointed out otherwise (you claimed so, but your claims are false and you have not substantiated them). And yes, it does belong in the same sentence with the EB, especially when that sentence is "Also the nationality of the father Nikola is disputed, and he is classified as Croat[5][6], Serb[7] Dalmatian[8] and Orthodox Slav.[9]."; obviously, if we have a book classifying him so, then he is classified so. I too can find 20 sources stating that Boskovic is Serb, but I don't think I should be doing that.
You are unbelieveable. Now you are calling "generous compromise" what will apparently be a revert to what you were reverting all along. How the hell is that a compromise? Nikola 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read this talk page more than once, you can still find posts by people who challenged this "source" of yours on the same ground I did too. You failed to provide credentials for it then, and you fail to do so now. It simply doesn't belong there, it is not verifiable, it is an assertation and what is worse it is a forgery. You can deny it as much as you want but it will not help you. Have you actuallly read what I proposed? How is that "a revert to what I was reverting all along"? Why don't you calm yourself and start reading what I write. I see there is no other way but to for a process of mediation. Tar-Elenion 11:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Each statement in your reply is false. I can't find posts by people who challenged the source on the same grounds, I haven't failed to provide credentials, it does belong there, it is verifiable, it is not an assertation, it is not a forgery and so on. You proposed that ethnicity categories be removed from the article and that the ethnicity issue would remain part of the article with some rewriting, and it is this rewriting which would apparently return the article to your revert. Nikola 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention to play cat and mouse with you. Your source is unverifiable, and that was pointed out by several people before me, read the talk page and you will quickly remember. As for my proposition I said it would be good to remove all ethnicity categories, your claim that it would revert the article to my revert is ridiculous. Tar-Elenion 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Troll. You proposed to remove all ethnicity categories and to rewrite part of the article about "the ethnicity issue". I agreed to removal of ethnicity categories but it is the rewriting of the article that would actually be return to your revision. Please, cite me parts of this talk page where someone pointed out to me that the source is unverifiable. Nikola 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil. The "rewriting" of the part about ethnicity would be a simple revert to the older version, you know, the one with arguments to each ethnicity (Croatian, Italian, Serbian) but what I would propose is merging them and having one solid chapter of the article. You have an example on the top of this talk page where Shallot pointed it out to you that there is absolutly no proof of these claims. There are more but this is just an example by a quick look at the talk page. Once again, please remain civil. Tar-Elenion 12:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Shallot admitted that he's of Serbian origin after he asked sources (confidential to him) and agreed to that POV version :). The version stood like that for months then, until several users from the Croatian Wikipedia changed it and harsh, brutal edit wars up to now (just like the one you three are leading). --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did he admitted it? Why can't I see on this talk page? Also I am very interested in seeing these source you speak of because I am very much sure such sources don't exist, there is absolutly no proof of his father being a Serb. Also may I ask where do you see me leading edit wars? The article is protected so even if I would like to lead one I can't. Tar-Elenion 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
See the the history of the article. :) Joy/Shallot saw Igor's sources and said that some of them are valid and then he asked his friend/accomplice Millosh who confirmed the info at two highest experts for Ragusian literature. The old version (which simply said "son of Serbian merchant") was placed as a consensus and stayed like that for months until several users from Croatian Wikipedia came and argued that it's invented. Be it as it is, I have no intention to search for all the links where Joy said such a thing - but if you have any doubts in it - just ask him for yourself. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You are lying again. This return to older version and rewriting is something you never proposed. Shallot wrote that he can't find anything on Google, years before this book was even mentioned. Nikola 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you able to say anything meaningful without offending people? Thats a strange thing to say about Shallot because Pax just said above that he was convinced with some source, you say there was no source. Tar-Elenion 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning. Could you please write down your proposed rewrite of the "Nationality controversy" section or at least outline how would that rewrite look like, and could you please tell why do you think that the book isn't verifiable, or quote someone else telling so? Nikola 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose we remove the ethnicity categories and return the older version of the article about this, you know the one with arguments for Italian, Croatian and Serbian claim, but as part of one merged chapter not divided. Tar-Elenion 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with removing ethnicity categories if that was done on other articles; but for the record, I would prefer to have them all in. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that this version should be used? Here are some deficiencies that I see with it:
Also the nationality of the father Nikola is disputed, and he is classified as Croat[6][7], Dalmatian[8] and Orthodox Slav.[9]. - the same problem as in the revert war, "Serbian" should be added.
Serbs emphasize his father's Slavic origin - well that's a bit nonsensical, why would Serbs do that? Serbs emphasize his father's Serbian origin.
However, there are no primary sources in known existence that cite Boscovich or his ancestors as referring to themselves as Serbian - very odd. Are there primary sources in known existence that cite Boscovich or his ancestors as referring to themselves as Croatian/Italian? Then, why wouldn't the same sentence be added to Italian and Croatian sections? It should go away.
since people of his time were primarely identified by religion. - dubious, on multiple levels. Also has to go away. Nikola 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The nationality of Boscovic, in my point of view, is a Ragusan/Dalmatian, because, he born in the Republic of Ragusa, free state, the etnic of the population is a mix of many people, the mother of Ruder Boscovix was a italian (modern concept) Paula Bettera, the father Nicola, was a herzegovina etnic (dalmatian), Dalmatia until 1918 was a different region with Croatia, Yugoeslavia in this moment, the term in my point of view is said "Ragusan/Dalmatian", Boscovic never know about the Croatia State, Servia State, Montenegro State, Italia, etc. in Europe, in every state exist a lot of different people, dialects, folks, for example in the north of Italy, Tirol, most of the 50% spoke german, in Germany in Bavaria (Bayern), spoke the dialect Bayern, in the north the prussian german, speak others dialects, etc. historical revival between the prussian and the bayerns, and Austria. Ragusino

Nikola Smolenski, you're talking to a community-banned user. :D --PaxEquilibrium 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who'da thunk. Nikola 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's deletions of November, 5, 2007

I've found a massive revert by user:DIREKTOR, of several correct edits, such us the proper infobox. I can understand, there is something wrong, but there is no need to destroy all my work. I ask to DIREKTOR to list the disputed arguments, and to limit his edits to the controversial points. Possibly in in good faith. Regards. Giovanni Giove 09:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I list some of the previous disputed points:

Disputed claims

  1. Correct name: Dubrovnik or Ragusa.
Ragusa is the historical name, I propose to write Ragusa (Dubrovnik) in the infobox.
  1. Milan (Italy) or Milan (Duchy of Milan)?
Milan is acctualy in Italy since 2.000 years (do not confuse Italy and the Italian state).
  1. Use of Italic, instead of Italian.
In Boscovich's time in Ragusa/Dubrovnik "Italian" and not "Italic" was the "language of culture". Two vernauclars were spoken, an Italian (Venetian) and a Sout Slavic (Chakiavan, if i remeber well). Italian is correct.--Giovanni Giove 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--Giovanni Giove 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Milan (Duchy of Milan). Which 2000 years old Italy? Roman province before 476, or few city states after that till 1861? Milan isn't even on the Apenine peninsula. Venetian of that time is much closer to Spanish than today's Italian (same goes for majority of cisalpine dialects of roman language continum:). Giovanni, you have stated in your profile that you speak Itallian, Spanish and French. You should have known this.
Also, there is no south slavic, the name of the language to which you are refering is Croatian.Ceha 12:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And italic is more appropriate. It doesn't have any conections to the state which was created in second half of the 19th century in the Apenine peninsula.
Ceha 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to comment your several historical errors. Basically, you claim that "Italy" is something born with Italian state in 1861: this an "original research". Thousands and thousands of articles here in Wikipedia, show that your claim is simply not true.--Giovanni Giove 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Was there at the time of Boscovich death a state named Italy? No. Where did he died? In duchy of Milan. Was that duchy part of some other state? No it was not. Where is the problem and what is the purpose of Italy in that sentence?:) Is there some other duchy of Milan outside of today's Italy whith we could confuse it with?:) Ceha 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For the second time: "Italy" does not coincide with "Italian state". *Thousands* of articles apply the statment that you deleted. --Giovanni Giove 14:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, just try to answer simple question. What is the use of putting it side by side with a name of historical state (duchy of Milan) in which Boscovich died? Ceha 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I ask for the 3d time to answer to my questions, and to show where my answers are incorrect. Last question is not understable and does not regard the claims.--Giovanni Giove 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Last question is what it matters. Because there is no need of putting Italy side by side Duchy of Milan. What did you wanted to ask me? Ceha 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is sad, but you are avoiding my questions (a further question is not an answer). You actually do not provide reasons for your deletions and edits (and they are against *thousands* of articles, and *established* wikipedia conventions). For the 4th time I ask you to answer.Giovanni Giove 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Giovanni stop playing dumb. You didn't ask me that. There is a already a name of historical state in which Boscovics died. I don't see why something more is necesary. Ceha 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally you answered: "according to you" is not necessary. Can you show me the proper wiki-conventions, plz? I ask you this because there are thousands of articles that do not respect this rule: I'm afraid it is against naming conventions. I still miss the other answers (questions are clearly listed above). Tx.Giovanni Giove 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So basicly what are you saying that under naming conventions Milan in the 18th century was not in the duchy of Milan than in Italy (which did not existed as state)? And that Milan was last 2000 years in eternal Italy no matter how the state in which was in was called? That is hevy POV... Please be clear about that. Naming conventions states that we should put the name of historical state at that time. Or no?:) Ceha 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Duchy of Milan was in Italy, of course, as discussed hundreds of time; Italy was not as state in that time (like Croatia, or Greece), but it existed anyway. Yes naming convention state that "Italy", can be reported. I'm realizing you have never read naming conventions, before to start this controversy: that's bad. I still miss some answers (sorry if I remember you). I warn you that if you will not provide valid argument, I shall restore the article in the original form, if you will revert again this will result in an edit war, and I shall report you. Anyway, I am sure you will answer. Am I?Giovanni Giove 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni I have already answered your questions on your discussion page. Here it is again:
1. If you wish to make a point that you are talking about Italy/Apenine peninsula then you should have put a wikilink to Italy - geographic region not a wikilink pointing to an article about modern Republic of Italy. There was no Italy (republic) at the time of Boscovich's life and at the moment of his death.
2. Ragusa is a historical name for Dubrovnik, nobody is saying otherwise, it is also mentioned in this article. But this article is not about Dubrovnik's history, this article is about a person. Today in English language the city is known as Dubrovnik and we should use the name that is used in English and known to everyone.
3. Italian was not used in his time, it was Ragusan dialect of extinct Dalmatian language. Italic is more appropriate because it points out the Romanic/Italic character of the culture. Italian is a modern term 99% of the time applied to modern state of Italy which as all know didn't exist until 1861 and Garibaldi. Also Chakavian is exclusively Croatian dialect. --Raguseo 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can not threthen me. As for answers, part of them was also on [[3]] your talk page, but I'll sum it up again.
1.If Ragusan republic(political entity) is his birth place then Duchy of Milan (also political entity) is his death place. But, I agree with Raguseo. If you want to speak about geographical region and not a state, put a wikilink to it, as long as Duchy of Milan not deleted.
2.Raguseo sum it up pretty well. Nothing to add.
3.Also. Putting Italian as "language of culture" insted of Dalmatian which was spoken in Dubrovnik, adds some iridentic flavor to your edits. At least it seems so.
Ceha 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At least regarding the place of death, I suggest "Milan, Duchy of Milan, today in Italy" as a compromise. I've seen it used in several articles and it seems to work well. Nikola 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Undeterminated?? Since when is it UNDETERMINATED? It is well know, but someone obviously cares about hiding the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.229.143 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Countries-my edits

I have changed

was a physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, and Jesuit from Ragusa (today Dubrovnik, in Croatia) who lived in Italy and, for some years, in France and England.

into

was a physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, and Jesuit from Ragusa (today Dubrovnik, in Croatia) who lived in some states of Apennine Peninsula (today Italy) and, for some years, in France and England.

Dubrovnik was not part of Croatia in that time-that is true. But , also , there was no any Italy at that time neither!

--Anto (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doubt

The text reports:
"Ruđer Bošković (see names in other languages; May 18, 1711 – February 13, 1787) was a Croatian physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, and Jesuit from Ragusa (today Dubrovnik, in Croatia) who lived in some states of Italian Peninsula (today Italy) and, for some years, in France and England."

In the article abut Ugo Foscolo he is considered Greek-italian becouse of his mother heritage.
Why in this article, Ruđer Bošković is not considered Croat-italian? His mother was italian (as the same article says) and his father ethnic croatian from Bosnia. So he his bot italian and croatian.

About Anto's edit; Bošković didn't live only in the italian peninsula, but also in Milan, Padua, etc... (mich are not in the peninsula but in continental Italy); so is more correct to say "some states of Italy". Noticing that "Italy" as a toponym exist since the ancient time, and it indicated (since Augustus) the geograpical region between the Alps and the Strait of Messina. So is absurd to say "there was no any Italy at that time", if you know that this name was already used at that time to indicate that region.
Goodbye and goodwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.172.63 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Underrated

To garbage with nationality and nationalism (I've quickly glanced over debates that went on)! My question is how can it be that this man is so atrociously depreciated? Electromagnetism and from which unified theory derives. 89.142.98.143 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger Joseph Boscovic was a Serbian-Italian

This is from the book of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche known as Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, back from 1886. To be precise, this is from the translation by Mario Faber, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 182:


This is from a book of Ioan Mackenzie James a British Royal mathematician, known as Remarkable Physicists: From Galileo to Yukawa, 2004, Cambridge University Press, page 55. There he wrote all about significant physicians:


This is from the book The Jesuits II: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540-1773 from a group of authors, John W. O'Malley, Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Stephen J. Harris, 2002, University of Toronto Press, page 742:


This is from Ludwig Boltzmann: The Man who Trusted Atoms by Carlo Cercignani and Roger Penrose, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 54:


This is from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Paul Edwards, 1967, University of Michigan, page 350, the entry on Boscovich, Ruggiero Guiseppe:


This is from the Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences by Samuel Kotz, Norman Lloyd Johnson and Campbell B. Read, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, page 303; Boscovich's entry:


This is from Samuel Johnson and the New Science by Richard B. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Press, 1971, page 39:


This is from the Roger Joseph Boscovich, S.J., F.R.S., 1711-1787: Studies of His Life and Work on the 250th Anniversary of His Birth by Lancelot Law Whyte, G. Allen & Unwin, 1961, that we even use currently as a source to this article. These are the writer's notes in the beginning, page 17:


...while this is of Elizabeth Hill, a Californian Professor on Slavonic studies:


This is from Paul Rankov Radosavljevich - of Montengrin/Serbian descent, sure, but a relative opinion considering his achievements at the West; Who are the Slavs?: A Contribution to Race Psychology, R. D. Badger, 1919, page 141:


Development of Concepts of Physics: From the Rationalization of Mechanics to the First Theory of Atomic Structure, Arnold B. Arons, Addison-Wesley, 1965, page 709, entry of the Boscovich model:


The Science in History of John Desmond Bernal, Watts, 1965, page 1,011:


The following is page 52 from Annotated Readings in the History of Statistics by H. A. David, A. W. F. Edwards. 2001, Springer. Chapter 2, The Method of Situation, the Weighted Median, and Order Statistics:


Find a Hotter Place!: A History of Nuclear Astrophysics of Ludwik Marian Celnikier, World Scientific, 2006, page 34:


Page 100 of The how and the why: An Essay on the Origins and Development of Physical Theory by David Allen Park, 1988, Princeton University Press:


The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-century Philosophy by Knud Haakonssen, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 1,153, Boscovich entry:


2nd page of Beyond Beta: Other Continuous Families of Distributions with Bounded Support and Applications by Samuel Kotz and Johan Rene, World Scientific, 2004:


Another also important is from The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy of Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 45, entry on this dude:


Enigma post komunizma of the Mislav Kukoč, Croatian Philological Society, 1997, page 178:


Great Scientific Experiments: Twenty Experiments that Changed our View of the World of Rom Harre ISBN:0486422631 Courier Dover Publications, 2002, page 221:


The Slavonic Encyclopaedia of Joseph Slabey Rouček, 1949, Philosophical Library, page 110:


Simply not true

I can copy paste far more quotations referring to him as a Croat. As for Nietzsche he referred to him as a Pole, a mistake for sure by Nietzsche but he certainly never referred to him as a Serb. The most important thing above all however is that Boscovich himself never mentioned Serbia or Serbs by one thing, on the other side he made several notes about Croatia, Croats and Croatian language identifiying with those at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.236.64 (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can copy paste far more - do it. Let's see your best shot.

You have a citation to the up from him.

He might've never mentioned Serbia or Serbs, but his father greatly studied the Serbian Orthodox monasteries - and was himself an Orthodox Serb. What are Roger's notes about Croatia, Croats and Croatian language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Note (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to paste anything because it has no value whatsoever. There is no citation above that confirms your postulations, they are all minor and of modern origin.
As for his observations about Croatia, Croats and Croatian language I suggest you read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.207.139 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No the answer is that you CANT do that, because there arent any. The citations are from 19th, 20th and 21st century. You probably dont even now that Rudjer lived in the 18th. The gargantuan book dedicated to Rudjer's life also one of the prime sources for this very articel is "minory"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Note (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 June 2008

GA-class?

It's not listed at WP:GA, nor can I find a nomination on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich/GA1, and neither on the talk page itself; so how come this is a GA-class article? Admiral Norton (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... I've reassessed it as B class - it's not quite GA material yet. GregorB (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
So lets list here things that need to be done to make this a good article. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't Theory of Natural philosophy (his most famous work?) be mentioned in the lead? 212.200.240.232 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Father ???

Wasn't his father from the then Ottoman Empire witch is todays Bosnia & Hercogovina and don't Croatians & Serbs share some surnames? 121.213.253.195 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

proper tag

i wanted to add a tag to word some in the lede sentence, but it inserted a section tag. someone please correct this. 93.86.221.197 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of several edits

I reverted several recent edits. Some of these were clearly vandalism, but I also reverted the following well intended changes:

  • Addition of Category:Roman Catholic theologians and Category:Roman Catholic philosophers. The article makes no mention of him being a theologian. Roman Catholic philosophers may make more sense, since he was a natural philosopher. But to me, this sounds as if he was working on Catholic philosophy. Since the article already is in Category:Croatian Jesuits, which is is a subsubcategory of Category:Jesuits, it should still be easy enough to find for readers, but I could be persuaded that the latter category makes sense.
  • Change of "some Italian states" to "Italy". Italy was not a country at the time. I feel it is about as anachronistic to write "Italy" as it would be to write "Yugoslavia". Moreover, the two extra words do convey additional information: That he did not just live in one place in Italy. So I feel they're worth it. — Sebastian 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
For Boskovic, being catholic (which was certain, in fact Jesuit) does not mean being Croat; having a Serb father (which was also certain), does not mean being a Serb; Dubrovnik IS Croatian city today but Ragusa was NOT a Croatian city at that time. ETC. Not only some sections but the entire above discussion is misplaced and should be removed. The editors should FIRST read some of the given literature (at least Boscovich, Ruggero Giuseppe. A Theory of Natural Philosophy. Translated by J. M. Child. English ed. Cambridge, Mass.,: M. I. T. Press, 1966., including the introduction – biography of Boskovic of Prof. Branislav Petronievic.). And THEN write comments in Wikipedia. Please try to avoid to be included in the group of the “Googwik scientist” the “experts” who learn only from Google and Wikipedia but study the subject in depth and help the expression “Googwik scientist” becomes obsolete. Herodotus1A (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In James Clerk Maxwell's "Atom" article in the 9th EB he discusses Boskovic"s theories about this subject matter at some length, including his concept that it's impossible for 2 real physical entities to ever come into contact with each other, and that their interaction was due to interacting forces, rather than interacting contact physics.68.90.145.25 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

This article ought to be renamed into "Ruđer Bošković" over redirect, per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources overwhelmingly use the Serbo-Croatian name. I performed extensive Google tests on the subject and found that only Google's general search engine yields more hits for "Roger Joseph Boscovich", which is likely due to Wikipedia mirror sites and the long-standing title of this article. As far as actual sources are concerned, however, "Ruđer Bošković" and its various transliterated forms are overwhelmingly more numerous than "Roger Joseph Boscovich" or particularly "Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich".

In short, "Roger Joseph Boscovich" (and variants) has 1,849 hits on Google Books and 409 combined Google Scholar hits. "Ruđer Bošković" (and variants) has 9,020 English hits on Google Books, and 2,793 combined Google Scholar hits. (The Italian name variants are nowhere close.)

The Google tests are all English language searches, and particular care was taken to avoid the numerous references to the Ruđer Bošković Institute (without the "-institute" parameter the results are even more convincing, of course). The largest result is in boldface.

  • Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any objections, I will be performing a good-faith move to "Ruđer Bošković" over redirect, per WP:COMMONNAME i.e. per sources usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong...

...here? Bošković's legacy is absolutely celebrated by Italy. The only complete edition of all the Bošković's works, today, is what is being done in Italy.--Presbite (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced. I figured it was added by the same IP that keeps rewriting "Bošković" into "Boshkovich". Feel free to restore. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Joseph_Boscovich/Archive_2&oldid=1078399898"