Jump to content

Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich/Archive 4

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

A fair few of those sentences look copied and pasted. The one about the mother living to 103 is exactly the same. Someone should investigate if there's a more general pattern of copying there, in which case there's copyright infringement. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

About reliable sources

I just want to make a remark regarding this edit: In it, this site was added as a source that RB was a Croat. This site also claims that RB was/is on the 500 dinar note ("The 500 dinar Croatian note honors Roger Joseph Boscovich,S.J."). As far as I know, Croatia now has kuna, not dinar. And if this text refers to ex-yu dinar, a 500 dinar note was not dedicated to RB, but to Nikola Tesla, (unfortunately) another great man whose nationality is disputed between Serbs and Croats. Having this in mind, I wonder if this source matches the criteria given in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And at the end, just a little observation: I think that the nationality of people living in old Republic of Dubrovnik is very tricky and immensly difficult job, apart from that I consider it copletely irrelevant. Many great men from Republic of Dubrovnik became famous not because they were Croats or Serbs, but for other, far more important things, and it amazes me every time when I see how much energy is wasted to these completely unimportant things. --Maduixa (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the man means the Croatian dinar. -- Director (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

..I see you're now on a campaign to "serbianize" physicists [1]. While you're here, I sincerely suggest you adhere to WP:BRD. We're not trying to see "who's is longer" (meaning the list of ref links in the article, of course). In fact, the huge list of reflinks (after either claim) is against MoS. As in every dispute, the best thing to do is follow the well-established method: 1) use only reliable, scholarly sources, and 2) quote the source briefly. Please. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you removed more then 10 sources? --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. If you have problem with sources, fix them. But blind removal of great number of reliable sources per IDONTLIKEIT is unacceptable. And let me see will you edit war again, or maybe PRODUCER will come again by accident. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Really, this revert of your is over the top! Based on what? Why did you removed ALL sources presented in this? This looks like nationalistic battle to me, i am very sorry, but it looks like this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
And, what about this?? That list of ref links is ok? You didn't mentioned that one? But references for opposite claim are not ok? Ooo, really, bad wiki practice. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
And at the very end, this man was born in 1711. Neither Croatia nor Serbia existed at the time. Therefor, we should not claim that man for one or other side here on wiki, but leave the article alone on nationalistic struggles, and mention origin disputes in one related section. Also, all categories should represent that. Per sources, all sides should be presented. That in NPOV. And that link on Nikola Tesla is restore of the edit by that same User:Er-vet-en who pushed that list in the first place here. So, please, if you want to follow well-established method, use it on both sides, and not just on the opposite one of yourself. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

note Serbs did exist at the time Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969-976) recognized Ras (Rascia or Raška) as being the seat of the Serbian lands.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.61.46 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And now, propose here first, what should we do. Dont revert everything again, without consensus. This is not yours article, i can add other sources, and you should fix the article further, and not remove everything, per IDONTLIKEIT. If you have problems with this version, i want to agree with you, to make it good. I am open for consensus. But i will not agree on complete removal of all references, and NPOV. Therefor, this is not final version, this is just start. We should pack it now, so all of us can agree on it, and be happy with this version. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the only reason I published that list (which is actually a composite by someone else on the german wikipedia) in the first place is to apply that same analogy you used on the Tesla article and anticipate the reaction. It was a moment of weakness for me, it can be forgiven.
What I don't understand is how the fierce and blatant the retaliation is. You claim that you oppose nationalistic views and that a person whose nationality is disputed by another party/nation nad cannot be strictly defined, yet you contradict yourself not much before by pushing the label "Serbian-American" (or simply supporting this change, whatever the case may be) without any evident literature/references to support this label, given that Croatia, in contrast to Serbia in this article, is a party that opposes this view. -- Er-vet-en (say) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Fellas, fellas.. let us be sensible about this thing. Let's see what you've got. Quote a few sources from historians. Scholarly sources. IF there really is a discernible conflict in sources (and I think there is), then we need to remove the national adjective from the lead. At least unless one of those claims can be classified as WP:FRINGE. -- Director (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is not the place for Nikola Tesla article, but just one comment. You reverted again after that diff presented, but i didnt participated anymore. Although i think we have sources for that claim, it is better not to mention anything in the lede, as that is not important, same as here... Let that moment of weakness apply for my revert, same as for you here. :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(2ec) @DIREKTOR. Well, it is not in there lede, that is the thing i am asking for. And if it is not in the lede, but in the section about that, it cannot be FRINGE to mention all of those... --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, why are you falsely citing sources? The only real sources you have are: RAD JAZU 1924 which is avaliable here: [2] but on page 168 there is nothing about Bošković. The next one is by Lancelot Law White which doesn't mention Bošković as a Serb (if I'm right because I've checked that book a while ago) - I'll check it again. Other sources don't deal with Bošković explicitly, and are contradicting itself - "Jesuit Serb" is like saying "wooden steel". They don't mention or explain by which criteria can he be considered as such - they just proclaim him a Serb.Philosopher12 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked Lancelot Law White, and it mentions that Serbs claim him because they presume he is from Orahovo in Montenegro, Croats because they presume he is from Orahov Do in Hercegovina, and Italians because he is influenced by italian culture. So, that source doesn't explain anything. Whitewriter, I have a feeling you haven't read the discussion before you edited the article. Because if you had, you would have known that "Serbian side" doesn't have anything but myths and guesswork. Your sources (all of them tertiary sources) mention Bošković superficially - by that analogy I can prove that Croats are Catholic Serbs, starting from Catholic encyclopaedia. [3] Philosopher12 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=GpQ3AAAAIAAJ

WikiProject Slovenia and Serbia?

OK, how is this supposed to help the Ruđer Bošković page? --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

My dear friend, i am sorry for this, but do you even know what means when article is tagged for WP, and what is the reason for that? It means that article is interesting to the specific WP, and that someone from that wp can help, expand it, and edit it better then someone unrelated. It does NOT mean that persons will magically change nationality if article is tagged by some wp. Also, this tags are NOT used for nationalistic battles and claiming struggles, but only as a way to further expand and correct the article. Therefore, do you have any reason for removing those, exept your own personal POVs and attitudes? --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Since his ethnicity is disputed and there are claims for Serbian back round WP:Serbia should be present without any problems since Rudjer Boskovic could be of Serbian origin as well of Croatian. Ex: article Sándor Petőfi has WP:Hungary, WP: Slovakia and WP:Serbia since all three nations have valid claims. Nothing special about this article to have similar WP projects. Adrian (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added the tag because I find the article belongs to the scope of WikiProject Slovenia. Bošković visited Ljubljana several times and has left a significant mark on education in Carniola, not forgetting about his influence on famous Carniolans, such as Vega and Karpe. Some important texts related to this have been written in Slovene or published in Slovenia and can be therefore more easily found and reviewed by members of this project. I also think that if the article is on the watchlist of the project, it will not be harmful, but beneficent to its maintenance. --Eleassar my talk 10:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is settled then. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I believe that Slovenia reference is a bit vague. Would make sense if a project Education in Slovenia existed or something like that. Otherwise we're having really huge number of articles in the project and that's hard to maintain. --Tone 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
How convenient, Well excuse me then, I have several more tags to add that might be interesting for others as well.--Jesuislafete (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Current wiki projects are relevant to this person (Ruđer Bošković), adding totally non-relevant wiki projects as some kind of demonstration is wrong and also against wiki rules (Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - WP:POINT.Adrian (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it is quite dubious how some of the projects this article is tagged for are "relevant" to this person. Nobody has demonstrated that they indeed were and editors who are hell bent on keeping those tags here have done very little in way of actually improving the article. However, on a side note - if the bottom line reasoning for adding and keeping them is that there is simply no harm in having them here (as said and repeated above ad nauseam), how could adding more of them be considered disruptive per WP:POINT? How is adding new projects to talk page disruptive to editing? Timbouctou (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Simply relevant to the naions wiki project. Since Ruđer Bošković`s ethnicity and life is connected to Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin roots it is a matter of simple logic adding this wikiprojects. I have added an example in my previous comment about Sándor Petőfi which has WP:Hungary, WP: Slovakia and WP:Serbia since all three nations have valid claims. Why should this article be anything special in comparison to others? I am seeing this according to other examples on wiki. Adding other non-relevant wiki projects is disruptive because it makes already present projects less important and makes the way to add any wiki project with or without any valid relevance. Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin projects have valid claim but what claim has wiki England,Germany and France? It is clearly a demonstration to make this consensus unjustified by adding some projects with no sense. By this, why not add Wiki Pakistan? Per WP:POINT this is a disruption (from WP:POINT : When you have a point to make, use direct discussion rather than parody.).I have nothing against adding any other wiki projects, but first their validity must be supported. Adrian (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikiprojects England and France are much more relevant than Serbia's and Montenegro. He was in correspondence with most influental scientist like D'Alambert and Voltaire, he was a French citizen and he published his work there. Same for England, and I should add, a member of Royal Society. I don't think Wikiprojects Serbia and Montenegro should be present just for some vague modern theories about his grandfather. He personally didn't have any (scientific, family etc.) active connections whatsoever with anything concerning present day Serbia and Montenegro. Just as no one is putting to Marco Polo's page Wikiproject Croatia just because there are some theories he was from Korčula. As with Slovenia, I agree there is no need for that project - unless we plan to overwhelm Talk page with hundred of projects for every mention in text like Wikiproject Moon, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Philosophy... Philosopher12 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point about France and England, and they may be valid but I am looking at the most similar article (Sándor Petőfi), as mentioned there are 3 projects (Hungary,Slovakia and Serbia), but:
a) Sandor was born in Transylvania a region that was populated by a majority of Romanian population, and that is present day Romania - There is no wiki Romania present.
b) He was born in the Austrian Empire, - there is no wiki Austria present.
c) He was killed by Russian military and by that gained somewhat importance for the Russians (after that his poems were translated into the Russian language). - there is no wiki Russia.
I am not insisting one way or another, but making projects like France or England ( Germany was also added as a part of this demonstration but nevermind), equal to the wiki Serbia, Croatia or Montenegro is not the same. After all origin of a person is the most important thing and from what I have seen from other articles, that is the main inclusion criteria for wiki Projects. GreetingsAdrian (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And dont worry, nothing bad will happen if related wiki projects are here on talk page, as they should be. Only article can be better. And maybe more neutral. You should try to push a side your own national agenda, and then wiki rules will be much clearer. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Adrian, Sándor Petőfi is a relatively small and unfamiliar article. I don't think that is an appropriate example. Let's use most famous articles like Leonardo da Vinci, Marco Polo, Albert Einstein, Ivan Meštrović or Novak Đoković. All of those examples prove contrary.

Whitewriter, if I understood you correctly, the article will be much better once you tag it with Wikiproject Serbia. That way readers can enjoy more theories about his grandfather from Herzegovina or Montenegro which is totally relevant for the article. Not only that, but all other "national agendas" (like the Croatian "agenda" for Dubrovnik which, it seems, still isn't recognised as one of historical Croatian lands) should be put aside for the "very neutral" firm theory about his Orthodox christian father. Very interesting. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncited

If you could spare a moment from all this trivia about his nationality... the entire article is rife with un-, or thinly-, sourced claims for various things William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tornado?

A comment from a friend:

The wikipedia article has at least one glaring omission. At the behest of the Pope, Boscovich carried out a damage survey of a tornado in Rome and published it, along with a review of existing tornado theories. It was probably the most complete description of the early scientific efforts to understand tornadoes prior to Wegener’s book in 1917. Boscovich’s book is online at http://books.google.com/books/about/P_Rogerii_Josephi_Boschowich.html?id=J9w4AAAAMAAJ. One of the few physical copies still remaining is in my local History of Science library.

William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

I cut this out:

His atomic theory, given as a clear, precisely-formulated system utilizing principles of Newtonian mechanics inspired Michael Faraday to develop field theory for electromagnetic interaction. Other nineteenth century physicists, such as William Rowan Hamilton, Lord Kelvin, and the elasticity theorist Saint Venant stressed the theoretical advantages of the Boškovićian atom over rigid atoms.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[1]

The inventor Nikola Tesla, a critic of Einstein, claimed in an unpublished interview that Einstein's theory of Relativity was the creation of Bošković:


[dead link‍]</ref>[1]

The inventor Nikola Tesla, a critic of Einstein, claimed in an unpublished interview that Einstein's theory of Relativity was the creation of Bošković:


for various reasons. Tesla was certainly wrong about relativity. You can argue that his views, just because he's Tesla, on RB are notable; but if so they don't belong under "legacy". Faraday was an experimentalist, not a mathematician. He didn't develope field theory. The source for the "atoms" bit, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair52/m52c10n.html, is dead (and the other one is in German; I'd given up by that stage) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I found a wayback copy, http://web.archive.org/web/20080228155850/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair52/m52c10n.html. Our text has to go as a copyvio anyway. And its thin William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Buck, Otto (1904), "Die Atomistik und Faradays Begriff der Materie", Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 18, p. 154
  2. ^ 1936 unpublished interview, quoted in Anderson, L, ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences. April 6, 1897 : The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, reconstructed 1994
  3. ^ 1936 unpublished interview, quoted in Anderson, L, ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences. April 6, 1897 : The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, reconstructed 1994

Unknown author on Bošković cited by JAZU

I found this from preview-hacking a JAZU 1923 work, p. 50 (the same data is found in a JAZU 1918, and 1919 work):

Further on it is stated that on the paternal side the Boskovic family was "of purely Servian origin", his grandfather being "an orthodox Serbian peasant", whereas his father Nicholas had only turned Roman Catholic in Dubrovnik. I wonder if this statement is based on any documents? Finally, Boskovic's name is given as "Rudjer Josif Boskovic in Serbo-Croatian". Boskovic's Christian name is pronouncend "Rudje" in "our language", as Rudje's sister Anica calls for short "our Slavonic language". This is seen also from my statement at the bottom of the page CCLXIX of the second portion of Boskovic's correspondence, which reads: “Rudje's devotion to church when still a child is seen from a passage written by Anica about a certain boy, who “never separates from the Jesuits, but keeps lending them a ready hand in church“. And “mother keeps saying: Just like our Rudje“ Не himself likewise sometimes signs his name as Ruge Boscovich. One of these signatures I have had photographed and inscribed below the photograph of Boskovic's bust, sculptured by T. Rosandic. This picture was published with the "First Portion of Boskovic's Correspondence" In so short a sketch of Boskovic's life In so short a sketch of Boskovic's life it would have been quite sufficient to prove that he was not an Italian, because he has even in England usually been considered as such. Thus, on one occasion J. Todhunter praising the Latin in Boskovic's writings says: "The Latin seems to me much more elaborate than is usual in the scientific literature of the period: this might perhaps have been expected from an Italian and a Jesuit1 Of interest is also the following contribution about Boskovic's stay in England and his Latin. In Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson", vol. I, p. 588., the following is mentioned about Boskovic: "He spoke Latin with a wonderful fluency und elegance. When Pere Boscovich was in England, Johnson dined in company with him at Sir Joshua Reynolds's, and at Dr. Douglas's, now Bishop of Salisbury.

Can anybody get a hold of this data?--Zoupan 13:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are Branislav Petronijević's words in his english translation of Ruđer Bošković's "Theory of natural philosophy." Your sources are not corresponding with JAZU works, which can be found here (as stated already a million times): [4] For more information, read archived talk pages. It seems this is some kind of review of the english translation of "Theory..." (which would be logical, since it was written in 1923, and the translation was published in 1922), that the author is citing Petronijević's words, expressing his doubts about his statements ("I wonder if this statement..."). It could be some kind of review, but I can't find it in JAZU works. It is unbelievable that you found English words in a document which is written in Croatian, so it could be that Google confused books. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Those copies are from "Matematičko-prirodoslovni razred" (JAZU), but not part of the "Rad". Here is from Rad 1924: Malo zatim veli se, da je s očeve strane porodica Boškovića.--Zoupan 18:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is from RAD (RAD is divided on sections like "društveni razred", "prirodoslovno - matematički razred" etc.), and I found the review. Very nice find Zoupan! It can be found in the link I already posted, RAD number 230, year 1925. It is the review of the english translation of "Theory of natural philosophy" by Vladimir Varićak called "U povodu državnog izdanja Boškovićeva djela." Among other things, he is very critical about Branislav Petronijević's sketch of Bošković's life because it contains many mistakes: 1.) He didn't even write proper date of Bošković's birth 2.) He is wondering whether theories about Bošković's Serbian father are based on any documents? "Veoma bi me zanimalo znati, da li je to napisano na osnovu kakvih dokumenata? (Something which we are all still wondering now) 3.) He didn't write proper names of towns and people (Bara Betere, it should be Baro Bettera; Orakova doesn't exist, there is Orahovo) etc.

This review is valuable proof that only two years after english translation there were raised voices about Petronijević's theories contained in that translation. Philosopher12 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please add the gist of this information to Nikola Bošković? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact, that article and Bošković family could be combined into an article similar to Origin theories of Christopher Columbus... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure those articles (Nikola Bošković and Bošković family) should be existing in the first place. Nikola is insignificant (btw., as far as I know, he didn't write the work about orthodox monasteries, he simply provided the author of Illyricum sacrum with information, since he visited those areas as a trader), and insignificant is the Bošković family (except Ruđer and his poet brother Baro). If you would ask me, I would propose these for deletion. As with creating "Origins of Ruđer Bošković", there is actually only one (probably fictional) origin theory - about his father, with no documents. We couldn't even write anything substantial in the article, only things like "Serbian author no. 1. concluded with the help of divination and folk tales that Bošković's grandfather was from..." Therefore, while it may work for Christopher Columbus because there are plenty of theories and proofs, it may not for Ruđer Bošković. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure. These articles are useful to us, Nikola is notable also, and there are no need to delete that. We have article about Voisava Tripalda, mother of Skanderbeg, and article is here because of origin dispute, with no other reason. As you can see, we created great article out of that. Same for Nikola and family. Dont remove information that can be useful for us in these articles. --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Their usefulness has to be weighted against WP:UNDUE. The article Voisava Tripalda that you mention apparently has a list of historians who have analyzed her geneaology. Exactly how long would be the list of historians who did the same for Bošković? Slobodan Šćepanović is not notable. Branislav Petronijević was not a historian. Who else is there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The different theories are for us to find out (we can add Branislav Petronijević, and Vladimir Varićak's comments on him). I oppose a deletion of Nikola Bošković and Bošković family, as Nikola is notable due to "Relazione della Provincia della Rassia", and the Bošković family-article offers information on the whole family, as well as the theories of origin, and possible nobility status, and can be expanded far more. --Zoupan 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i am never for a deletion, unless there are no other solution. Here and those articles we can research far more then we have now. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Replying to both - once again - if you still have to "find out the various theories", then you're failing not only WP:UNDUE but WP:V, which is a simple no-no. Being a source for a historical book does not automatically make a person notable, in fact that sounds like a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. WP:Inclusionism is all fine and well, but it simply doesn't trump the basic policies on verifiability and reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Family Bošković of Serbian Origin

From his father side Ruđer Bošković is of pure Serbian origin but since Bošković's grandfather, Boško, converted to Roman Catholicism, his father, Nikola, followed.

"On his father's side the family of Boskovic is of purely Serbian origin, his grandfather, Bosko, having been an orthodox Serbian present of the village Orakovo in Herzogovina. His father Nikola, was the first merchant in Novi Pazar (Old Serbia), but later settled in Dubrovnik (Ragusa, the famous republic in Southern Dalmatia), whither his father, Bosko, soon followed him, and where Nikola become a Roman Catholic. Pavica, Boshovitch's mother, belonged to the Italian family of Betere, which for a century had been established in Dubrovnik and had become Slavonized-Bara Betere, Pavica's father, having been a poet of some reputation in Ragusa."

http://ia600400.us.archive.org/10/items/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich.pdf

[1] : 11 

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milovac (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 March 2013

That exact source is unreliable, a discussion of it is already at Nikola Bošković, but thanks for formatting a reference to it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The only problem with such a claim is that it lacks any scientific and factual credibility. In other words we cannot and will never be able to confirm it as no such records exist. Certain Serbian authors have made such a claim based solely on their "free interpretation" while then claiming it is based on "oral tradition". Besides as Joy pointed out there is already a place for such a discussion and this is not it. Shokatz (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Well, if you cannot accept this based on "lack of scientific and fractional credibility", even though it written in 1922 in plain English and written by Englishmen and moreover, it is used word "purely Serbian" with big accent on "purely", then it makes sense that in the same fashion you mention that on the main page. For example: "...based on some source (put the James Mark's translation and edition) and based on oral tradition, Boskovic family on his father side is purely Serbian". It sounds simple and correct. But if you defend you position from any other reason then you are just driving community crazy, and asking something that obviously cannot be found to use that as an excuse. Well you excuse then, it is written and there is nothing to be said any more. It is now all about you and not the content. Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.53.123 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is already present in the section "Competing claims for Bošković's nationality". Also it wasn't written by an Englishman but by Branislav Petronijević in the preface biography of the English edition of Bošković's book published in 1922. in UK. The same biography was reviewed and highly criticized by several other authors, most notably by Vladimir Varićak (published in 1925.) exactly for the same issue of lack of evidence, lack of scientific research overall (meaning questionable sources such as "oral tradition" etc.) and even fallacious claims. This entire matter is already mentioned on the Nikola Bošković (Rudjer's father) page as was mentioned before by Joy and I. To reiterate myself: there is absolutely no proof he (Rudjer) or his father were of "purely Serbian origin". We can call such a claim "an assertion" at best...one that is heavily disputed by numerous sources and authors and even by the person in question (Rudjer) himself; if we look into his personal letters to his sister Anna where he makes statements how he "...did not forget the Croatian language..." and to "...our Croats..." when he refers to Croatian soldiers he met in Vienna. Shokatz (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Child, James Mark (1922). A Theory of Natural Philosophy. Chicago, London, Open Court Publishing Company.

A simple observation

The Columbia Encyclopedia describes Boscovich as an " Italian mathematician, astronomer, and physicist " [5], while Encyclopædia Britannica writes that Boscovich was an " Italian astronomer and mathematician " [6]. The Encyclopedia Americana [7] and Enciclopedia Italiana [8] refer to Boscovich as an "Italian astronomer".

Any other encyclopedia, describes Boscovich as an Italian. (See: Google Books http://books.google.it/bkshp?hl=it&tab=pp)

This article may contain original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Why on Wikipedia, Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich became Ruder Bošković ? I don't understand... Now, he should be a Serb ?! "The Mysteries of wikipedia." --2.33.180.73 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm that is strange....looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica link I see this "Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich, original name Rudjer Josip Bošković". Also it mentions him as simply astronomer and mathematician...no mention of Italian. Also we have documented claims by Boscovich himself saying he is not Italian but rather Dalmatian from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) which is certainly significant. Shokatz (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Serbian

I know that some users dislike this, but we have sources for it, and we already talked about this. Bošković's legacy is consequently celebrated in Croatia, Italy and Serbia. Quit with pov agenda, if we have Croatian scientists, Italian scientists, Roman Catholic cleric–scientists, Jesuit scientists, we will have also Serbian scientists. Get over it, or should i list again 20+ sources, just to be the same as now? --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don`t understand the problem? Of course Ruđer Bošković is celebrated in Serbia too. I am not sure, one of the leading astronomical institution of Serbia is named after him. I don`t understand where is the problem here? Adrian (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, how long do you intend to perpetuate this behavior where you continually claim you have sources for various general claims, yet continually fail to present them? Do you really think this pattern is productive? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Just check article history. I added number of sources that were removed back then, but if you really need it again, i will add it here also... --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to revert something, why not that instead? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ummm, i dont understand. What exactly you have in mind? I will not add those back, as i do not have either will not time to follow that, but that is unrelated with this category, right? We already have sources for that, in the article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not unrelated, we don't really have sources for such categorization in the article. We have a mention, and the linked father article has more mentions, but none of it seems to be reliable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The main problem (as I see it) is that you have no sources which can confirm he had any (f)actual connection with Serbia or Serbs whatsoever except other people (rather recently...relatively speaking) claiming he had some connection...and most based on "oral tradition" (really?!?). That is not enough to proclaim him something just because someone else claims it. For the current categories present in the article (Italian and Croatian) we have an actual documented basis. For Italian it's obvious...his mother was Italian and he spent half of his life in Italy. As for Croatian we have his letters to his sister and the fact he was born in Dubrovnik (modern-day Croatia). Those are documented FACTS. As for him being celebrated in Serbia...Tesla is also being celebrated in Croatia and unlike Boscovich he actually had some connection with Croatia (unlike Boscovich with Serbia) and yet there is no category there mentioning him as a Croatian scientist. Shokatz (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, i will list sources (again). Also, will search for some new ones. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you list ONE proof of his Serbian orgin? His father was merchant and he spent some time in Serbia and that's it! Just one proof, please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ruđer Bošković → Roger Joseph Boscovich – It is the name used in English and mostly used in English sources, and so this should be the name as this is an English-language Wiki. Dirifer (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  •  Comment:. Relevant policies:
  • WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
  • WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage (...) Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek)."
Hope this helps in the discussion that should follow. kashmiri TALK 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I´m not saying yes or no, but I think that you, Dirifer, should bring on here some evidence that Roger Joseph Boscovich is indeed more used in English-language sources rather than Ruđer Bošković. Google search results, or some other sort of evidence... FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Reply - When i searched the two names on google books, i mostly found Serbian language books for 'Ruder Bsokovic' but mostly found English results for the English and French version of the name. I proposed this requested move to see where everyone stands on this, as it didn't look like one had brought up yet. Dirifer (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply. Google search limited to English-language results only:
Google Scholar search - English-language only, excluding "institut(e)":
Hope this helps. kashmiri TALK 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you please link those searches? Those numbers are by several orders of magnitude smaller than what I see just on the equivalent Google Books searches; something is off. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done. Note that searches were limited to English-language pages only, not the entire web. BTW, I wouldn't really trust the "number of results" Google advertises on the very first results page. If you try clicking through to the last result page, you'll be surprised. I added "start=900" to the search query to show results from the 900th on - and as you can see, they weren't even that many. kashmiri TALK 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • probable Oppose per English Google books since 2000. A search of 1900- sources is of little use, we need to limit to current usage:
"Rudjer/Ruđer Boskovic" 743 hits
"Ruder Boskovic" 275 hits
"Roger Boskovich" 4 hits
"Roger Boscovich" 515 hits
Secondly oppose in that 18th Century is getting a bit late for "John Calvin" type exonyms. In the context of wikipedia's biography bank "Roger" (although it's French not English) and the "-ich" ending could misleading suggest (a) medieval, (b) emigrated to America, neither of which are the case. Eastern European scientists had French/Latin/Italian names, but we don't generally rename in the 18th Century. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I just had a look at article translated personal names: The earliest we have, which is already exceptionally late, is Nicolas Steno (1638–1686), anatomist, geologist and bishop (and saint) - abbreviation of Latin Stenonis from Danish Niels Stensen. To give the French name (rather than Italian: Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich or Latin: Rogerius Josephus Boscovich) would make him the youngest on the list (1711-1787). On the other hand maybe he should enter as the youngest person on the list. Would feel more comfortable if the nom "It is the name used in English and mostly used in English sources" was actually proven by Google Books since 2000, which it isn't. Personally I'd prefer Rogerius Boscovich, but with few 2000 hits that's not going to happen. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Google Books search is buggy and routinely includes words and phrases that you try to exclude ("Institut(e)" and "Društvo" - for Astronomsko Društvo Rudjer Bošković). Still, I get several times less results than you, and even then quite a few of them seem to be publications by Ruđer Bošković Institute (esp. that brown-covered journal in Croatian):
Regards, kashmiri TALK 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. From above Roger still seems to be in the slight minority whichever way. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, did wrong (duplicate) queries, corrected now. Roger seems in majority (186/154), even more because of several Croatian-language publications (e.g., that #$%^* journal in brown cover) that I found no way to filter out and which add to "Ruđer". Adding a search on "Ruggero Boscovich", results are interesting considering that this is the form preferred by Google Books. kashmiri TALK 09:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The brown cover stuff in Google Books is a boilerplate, it appears.
In any case, I think the name from Croatian sources, assuming the readers are otherwise sufficiently well served by it per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, does factor into the WP:COMMONNAME calculation here: e.g. if English readers see a foreign name in 40% of the English sources, and an anglicized name in another 40%, and then some more of the same foreign name in the rest, then we can't just say that the anglicized name wins. At the same time, there doesn't appear to be any particular reason not to use the anglicized name, both because the spirit of WP:UE and because Bošković actually lived in London at one time, which makes his anglicized name particularly pertinent in an English-language encyclopedia. Weak support. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, this person clearly has an English name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment: If that helps, Nicolaus Copernicus is here under his English name and not under original Polish "Mikołaj Kopernik" or German "Nikolaus Kopernikus". He seems to be a slightly better known personality than Boscovich and with more active editors, and I believe if there have ever been any discussions re. page name, they must have been resolved with the current version. kashmiri TALK 11:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. Roger Joseph Boscovich is not common name of this person per neutral and reliable international sources. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild support. I wanted to close this because it seems like more English-language sources use the anglicized version of his name. It's still a little too close for me to call, but the sources sure seem to me to prefer "Roger". Red Slash 00:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Serbian ethnic origin

User:Shokatz insists in his edits that the Serbian ethnic origin claim is not substantiated by evidence. I've linked to a reliable source - a 2008 book published by OUP which discusses Serbian population in Dalamatia, directly quoting (and translating) Serbian Scholar Jovan Ilić where he mentions that both Boscovich and Ivan Gundulić were of Serbian ethnic origin. These are both reliable sources and I see no reason to question them as "dubious". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, it's a book by one author claiming alleged Serbian origin by referring to the claim of another author. On what base is that claim made? See previous discussions on the matter. Shokatz (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
He is not referring to anything, he is directly citing him in a block of text. I've linked to English work because it's more acccessible to English readers due to the language barrier, plus it is available on Google Books.
On what evidence is Ilić's claim made? Who cares. It's not up to us to discuss primary sources. Ilić's position is repeated by many other later Serbian scholars. It's a POV that merits inclusion. If you want to discuss it do it so in an academic journal. Wikipedia is not the place to do OR, or discuss primary sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Blatant statements about ethnic origin of historical or living persons demand better sources than "I said so". Your source is valid for the claim itself, but not for what is claimed. And your source is not a primary source, in fact it is not even a secondary source. Furthermore that Ilic character was actually a geography professor so his "expertise" on this issue is highly questionable and is certainly derived from other sources, not to mention his affiliation with Serbian nationalist revisionist Jovan Deretic makes it even worse. The "primary source" for this claim is actually Branislav Petronijević's preface of Boskovich's book published in 1922 in the UK. That same preface has been reviewed, criticized and disputed by several authors and most notably by Vladimir Varićak in 1925. I have already addressed this some time ago. You should go and read it up. Shokatz (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You were asking on which basis was the claim on Serbian ethnic origin made. I'm telling you it doesn't matter. "Ethnicity" is imaginary anyway - all that matters is that there are reliable sources making that claim. And you are tagging a reliable reference as dubious which it is not. It's a major POV that must be mentioned. If you have other sources invalidating the claim made in original source then you should add them in the follow-up. E.g. "But Croatian scholars dispute that because..." You're mixing discussing the arguments themselves (interpretation of primary sources i.e. ancient documents) with the reliability of Wikipedia sources for particular claims. Currently it looks like as if it is doubtful that Serbian sources claim that Boscovich was Serbian, which is not the case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And I am telling it does matter. I am also telling you now for the third time and on a third talk page....I am not interested in your personal views about ethnicity, my arguments or anything really. You have not posted a reliable source, a reliable source specifically refers to the issue. Now if you put a sentence with such weasel words like "Serbian sources claim..." you should then provide what are those sources, you cannot put a link of one author referring to the other author who refers to yet another author....that's quackery. Now the tags are applied properly. Who are the sources is unknown and second the dubious tag is there because this claim is highly controversial and of dubious verifiability. The existence of a claim is supported by the reference you have provided. Shokatz (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

[10] - Shokatz this makes it sound that the disputed claim is "Serbian scholar Jovan Ilić claims that Boscovich is of ethnic Serbian origin, like other Ragusan Slavs." Which is not the case. You're completely missing the point and don't understand what that tag means. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. It is highly dubious claim by a person who has no expertise in the field (the man was a geographer) with no additional references on what is his claim based, no inline citations and furthermore it is a blatant weasel wording. Shokatz (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Funny how you mention that he was a geographer (he also wrote on history) when your chief argument against Serbdom of Boscovich above is Vladimir Varićak - a mathematician. Anyway, whether Ilić's statement is "correct" or not doesn't matter - it's his opinion, and such statements can only be opinions because there is no physical evidence to ethnicity - if others (e.g. Croatian scholars) have refuted it feel free to put it in the article. If you have no sources specifically claiming that Ilić's assertions are wrong, then you have nothing to complain about. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Varicak made several scholarly works on Boscovich all around, Boscovich and his work was his immediate interest as a physicist. What exactly was Ilic's interest in Boscovich besides making baseless claims on his ethnicity? What are his sources? He makes blatant statements with no references or elaboration at all. Ilic's assertions are just that....his assertions. Nationalist ramblings and quackery. Shokatz (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
But regardless whether they are "true" or not - it is not disputed that he made them, or that the tagged sentence misinterprets the source. And that is exactly what {{dubious}} is for. You're using it for the wrong purpose - questioning arguments of the scholar that made the assertion, which is something that Wikipedia cannot be doing since that is forbidden. I've told you already - if you want to discuss arguments by Ilić write a paper and submit it to a journal. If you have reliable sources that refute Ilić's (or of other Serbian sholar's) position of Boscovich being ethnic Serbian, feel free to add them to the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
That tag is specifically there for such disputes as this. It is clearly stated ....add [tag] after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. And then in purposes it elaborates and I would especially emphasize the third point: to question the veracity, accuracy, or methodology employed by a given source. Making blatant statements about a guy's supposed "ethnic origin" (who died 300 years ago btw) without any specific reference how the author came to that conclusion is nothing but quackery, and the fact someone decided to put that in a book doesn't make it a verifiable source. I wouldn't care if it was Albert Einstein himself who wrote it. The existence of the claim is not disputed, it is the claim itself that is dubious and of questionable methodology ... if we can even call it that. And the tag specifically also refers to the previous discussion about this matter. Now unless you have some startling discovery on this matter about Boscovich's alleged "origin" we have nothing else to discuss....I have no intention to discuss how you perceive various Wiki policies or tags. Shokatz (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but the sentence "scholar Y claims X" itself is not dubious. There is a distinction between X and "Scholar Y claims X". The article does not claim that Boscovich was of Serbian ethnic origin, only that it is classified as such by some Serbian scholars. If the article claimed "Boscovich was of Serbian ethnic origin" and used Ilić as a reference, then {{dubious}} template would be applicable. Now you made it look like it's doubtful that Ilić even stated that Boscovich is of Serbian ethnic origin!
If you want to question arguments for the Serbdom of Boscovich made by Serbian scholars - fine, add them to the article. I have no problems with that. But what you're doing here is abusing this template for reasons unknown. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No it doesn't, the tag specifically refers to the made claim...as is intended. That claim is disputed and the dubious tag is no different than the general NPOV tag except that one is used in general and one on specific issues. Shokatz (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
But the claim itself cannot be disputed because it is sourced. What you dispute is the argument by Ilić why Boscovich is ethnically Serbian. But that argument itself is not even present in the article. There is no statement "Boscovich is Serbian" or "Boscovich is Serbian because..". There is only "Boscovich is classified as Serbian by Scholar X". Do you get the difference? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure it can be. You obviously don't understand the concept of reliable source. Not everything that is published is all of a sudden reliable source no matter how ludicrous it is...that is exactly the issue with this claim. There is a history of that claim being disputed for poor or no research and blatant lack of evidence. Shokatz (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't about reliable sources at all. It's about you tagging as dubious statement that says that a certain Serbian scholar thinks that Bošković has Serbian ethnic ancestry, for whatever reasons, when in fact nobody disputes that he made that statement. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference in frame of reference between "X" and "Y stated X". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not intend to reiterate myself for the Nth time. Shokatz (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This dispute comes up every year or so. So if I'm following this correctly, it seems that the issue now is whether the source of a Serbian scholar claiming Serb ethnicity of Boscovich should be added? Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dubious could be of help? --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There are many Serbian scholars that claim Serbian ethnic origin of Bosocovich. He wouldn't be added in the lexicon of the most important Serbs if there weren't. It's a legitimate POV that merits inclusion, just as Croatian and Italians POVs which are based on "evidence" such as hear-say of what Boscovich shouted on the street. I've added Ilić as a representative of that Serbian POV and Shokatz is tagging it with {{dubious}} which is completely inapplicable - it makes it look as if it is disputed that Ilić made that statement. Shokatz also thinks that wiki editors should discuss merits of scholarly arguments for inclusion of their opinions and conclusions, i.e. directly interpret primary sources - no, it's not up to us to discuss that. So that idiotic tag is simply there for no reason. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So what if some Jovan Ilic(whose page doesn't even exist) claimed that Boskovic is Serbian?Where are we going with this?Will we put link of Ante Starcevic next as Croatian source for Serbs?And claim that Nemanjic family was Croatian and that all of Serbs were Croats?What is this?Does this Ivan Stambuk just write in google "Ruder Boskovic Serbian" and then try to find some Serbian claim he was Serb?On what basis is that claim?On what proofs?So nowadays whoever writes something serve as a source or as a proof?We should say it doesn't matter what some Jovan Ilic says or Ana Trbovic like he is saying it doesn't matter what some Croatian and English scholars say.Or that it doesn't matter what modern Britannica say it's all about that from 1911.That is correct one.Ivan Stambuk lost his plot totally, what he is doing is simply ridiculous.Scrosby85 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One more thing.This last sentence "like many other Ragusan Slavs at the period." is what?Assumption that all Ragusans were Serbs or that many Ragusans Slavs claimed that Boskovic was Serbian?I would like explanation because i will delete it if it was first because it doesn't matter and it isn't connected with first part of the sentence.If it is second then i would like some sources which Ragusans.Thank you.Scrosby85 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ivan Štambuk added an info with source, and Jovan Ilić isn´t "some (guy) without wp article", he is a scholar specialised in Geography (geography is way more closer than Shokatz´s mathematician on this matter). Ivan Štambuk edit seems quite uncontroversial and correct, and it´s one sentence in almost the bottom of the article, why all this panic? I also see the point he is making about Shokatz wrong tagging. He is not adding that Boskovic is Serb, just saying that some Serbians cholars claim he´s Serb, and gave an exemple. The dubious tagging is wrong as there is nothing dubious in the source and the claim. FkpCascais (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no issue with the tag at all, the tag is properly introduced in the article and specifically (when you click on it) leads you to the discussion about the supposed claim. Shokatz (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no panic at all.But it bothers me what he thinks is nationalistic to him.He just go to articles and erase all the sections saying "this doesn't need to be here(and that is explanation?)" and then puts his views in instead which many people don't agree with.And that people for him are nationalists.He is putting some scholars which people never heard of before and then he makes articles on that sources.And if somebody don't agree with him he calls them fascists and nationalists yet he is the one who is mentioning Seselj and that Croats don't exist in Dubrovnik and that many Croats in Dalmatia never considered themselves Croats.And that man is responsible for editing anything about Croats an Croatia.I for example never edited something about Serbs or gone to war with one of them.I just try to contribute to articles just so they would be more realistic.But this man is always on my way and others people way.And he just reports people to Admins saying they are nationalists.It's pathetic and boring.Scrosby85 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a quotation without a context. Interpretation is left to the reader which shouldn't be the case. Instead, we must quote conclusions of others (scholars, historians..). A few sentences explaining the crux of the argument or position is quite enough. The entire section is of doubtful notability anyway - I doubt that biographies of Boscovich spend a single passage discussing the issue of his ethnicity along the bloodlines of his parents, languages he corresponded in, or what he shouted in the street. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with you Ivan.I think the article is enough cripled by you.You do not own this article.I don't get it why didn't you change this long ago?Why does it bothers you now?I asked you about last sentence about Ragusan Slavs you didn't answer me.I asked you why is just Jovan Ilic mentioned in last sentence but sources are from Ana Trbovich.You didn't answer to single of my questions but you constantly revert my edits.Scrosby85 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There are three sources for Ilić, including the entire chapter at Projekat Rastko. Trbovich's book is available at Google Books so I've also added it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And none of those are reliable sources. Someone's ethnic origin is not and cannot be a matter of assessment by someone 300 years later. Let's review the excerpt from Ilic present on Rastko pages, he states: For many centuries Dubrovnik traded with its Orthodox hinterland and received immigrants therefrom. The most renowned inhabitants of Dubrovnik Ivan Gundulic, poet (1583-1638), and Rudjer Bošković, scientist and philosopher (1713-1787), famous in the European circles, were of the Serbian origin. Now there is no footnote or anything which can help us how he came to that conclusion. What are his sources for this blatant claim? There are none present. Now what do we have discussing Trbovich...well nothing since she calls upon Ilic who as it is clearly obvious has no references to call upon his claim. These sources are dubious as I have pointed out several times. Just because someone claims something in a book, doesn't make it the truth. These are not primary or secondary sources, these are non-sources. Real primary source would be Boscovish referring to his "Serbian origin" or some census from Dubrovnik Republic, etc. where he or his father identified himself as such. And secondary source would be something referring to these primary sources. We have nothing like that at all regarding this specific matter. In any case this is a non-issue, clinging between WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Shokatz (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Croatian Nacional about Rudjer's Serb origin

Here's a part of Croatian source, Nacional.hr which writes that he was Serbian origin! Croats you can not hide this fact. Stop with it, please. Get civilized!

"Ruđeru Boškoviću djed bijaše pravoslavac iz trebinjskoga kraja koji se selidbom u Orahov Do obreo među katolicima i pokrstio, a mati mu bi Talijanka - ni njega nitko ne može istrgnuti iz hrvatske kulture. "

http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/89793/tko-je-tko-i-odakle-strani-velikani-hrvatske-kulture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.189.2 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in that sentence or source does it say he is a Serb. And really, get civilized? You claim Croats said he was a Serb than claim Croats are hiding this fact. You seem confused. It is obvious you are Anti-Croat. Perhaps it is you who should stop. Why do Serbs always insist on claiming everything from Croats, even their own ethnicity, (Serbian Catholics). Funny, when it was theorized that Nikola Tesla had some Croatian ancestry in his lineage, Serbs blew up the wiki page with atrocious comments. You have taken Tesla, is that not enough?

108.27.252.190 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources about Serbian origin

Ruđer Bošković is regarded as Serb per all official Serbian institutions and per significant part of international scientific society. I have added numerous sources about that, and much, much more will follow. I would just ask for peaceful conversations and without national claiming in the lede, as most important thing is Ruđer's work and legacy, and not his origin. We can, and should mention all in "Competing claim" section, but not in the entire article. Thanks. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You will excuse me if I interfere this late in but what sources are you talking about? All I see is that your so-called sources are based on CLAIMS and even worse supposed oral tradition?! What is this....Lord of the Rings article? We are talking here about a real person not some fantasy character. If you want to put some of your claims in the article feel free to do it but do not expect them to be on the same level as a proven historical facts. As far as his origins go...we have these facts: 1. His father was from Dubrovnik 2. He referred to himself as Dalmatian and even further as Croatian ("our Croats", etc.) 3. His mother was Italian 4. He spent a great part of his life in Italy. In short there is no connection between him and Serbia in any other sense except his father once traveled to what was once Serbia as an envoy. If that is enough for you to proclaim him Serbian feel free to use it but in your personal endeavors not as a fact on public website as this. Shokatz (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no problem with the claims. They exist and their existence is supported by sources. Wikipedia is actually based on claims and their verifiability. If WhiteWriter's "sources are based on CLAIMS" then that is all what is necessary to support the existence of "claims" assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The existence of the claim is not the issue, I am talking about the credibility of the claim. You will surely agree that a source citing a written or any other even half credible historical source is much more worth than one based on "my great great great grandmother's aunt's sister said so" or such a ridiculous concept as "oral tradition". It is interesting for a trivia section of the article if such exists but such cannot be presented as a fact. Sorry it's simple as that. Shokatz (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I don't agree with you. Wikipedia is not determining what is a fact or not. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources which are reliable in context they are used. There is not absolute reliability. It depends on the context. There is no need to request extraordinary exceptional historical work written by very credible expert in history to support the simple assertion like existence of the claims that RB was of Serbian origin. Those claims should be presented (shortly) to the readers of wikipedia or article would otherwise be against WP:NPOV. I don't have intention to participate in editing of this article, or to dedicate time and energy to this issue. Your comment about claims in capital letters inspired me to write above comment. I am out of this discussion now.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself perhaps is not determining what is a fact but Wikipedia users certainly should, otherwise what is the point in all this anyway if we would present far-fetched ideas and "claims" all over the site. After all Wikipedia is supposed to be the collection of information and correct as they should possibly be, online encyclopedia if you will. If we would go and add all sorts of ridiculous claims which have no basis in anything the articles quality would deteriorate even way further. And while we should abide the WP:NPOV it is within every Wiki user to use their better judgement and see when does it apply and when it does not. I am out of this discussion myself, after all, I only wanted to make myself known and that I will take a closer look at this article in the future. Shokatz (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, totally wrong Shokatz. It is not up to Wikieditors to determine facts. Only collect scholarly opinions and back them up. Interpreting primary sources, doing original research and creative synthesis is strictly forbidden. That is exactly what you have been doing - and worse, objecting to reliable sources on the basis of your ill-conceived interpretation of what Wikipedia should be doing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The reliability is what is in question. You are being hypocritically since you are yourself determining if your source is reliable. 108.27.252.190 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia?

You are kidding right? Another Croatian historical figure under observation by this WikiProject. He has nothing to do with Serbia, why is he under that WikiProject's jurisdiction? 108.27.252.190 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You should ask them. If he is of interest to this project he just is. And he is not under ANY jurisdiction. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"WikiProject Serbia is dedicated to creating, improving, and expanding articles related to Serbia and Serbs". Boscovich was not from Serbia, nor was a Serb.--Crovata (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Boskovic's letters to his brother

http://postimg.org/image/6jqi4c5nn/ (cleary says "long live haddick and our Croats)

http://postimg.org/image/kob7wb9zh/ (statement how he wished good luck to Croatian soldiers in Croatian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.19.94 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proven sources

It is important to make sure that sources are reputable and proven accurate. The reason I removed mention of Boscovich's so-called Serbian ancestry is due to the source being Jeremija D. Mitrović. His writings consist of many tenants of Greater Serbian ideology, one of which Dubrovnik (and much of the Balkans) are historically Serbian, and it is a "great lie" that Dubrovčani are Croatian. Also, lots of Vatican conspiracies. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that the talk page is not being used by those who keep reverting. Somehow, the Edit Summary portion has taken it's place for discussion. My view on this is that the source is unreliable and politically motivated. Does anyone disagree?... --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Just mentioning "Greater Serbia" and such borderline conspiracy theories, means that you are under the influence of daily politics and local medias who are pushing particular POV. Sadko (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

FkpCascais, Everett57, let's discuss the recent changes to the article before making further edits.

I'll be as brief as possible, as I don't have time to analyze and comment in full at the moment. The recent changes deal with the following questions:

  1. Can RJB be called a Croatian physicist? Off the top of my head, I'd say yes, but that needs to be illustrated by sources (note: I haven't read the above talk page sections at all!).
  2. Is it OK to mention competing claims about RJB's ethnicity/nationality, in particular the SANU claim? I'd say yes, because SANU claim is substantial, non-trivial and therefore should not be omitted in the interest of balance.
  3. Is it OK to say that SANU claims "were proved to be incorrect"? I'd say no, because it is an interpretative statement based on the secondary source, which violates neutrality. If the purported rebuttal needs to be mentioned at all, it needs to be presented as one of the views, not as a final verdict on the issue, and its arguments need to be at least briefly presented (I for one would be interested to hear them).
  4. Should the article list RJB's name in Serbian Cyrillic? I'd say no, because RJB's bio provides no evidence that he ever self-identified as a Serb, used Serbian language, or had his works published in Serbian.

That's how I see it at the moment. Whether you agree or disagree, please put forward your arguments. If there are other open questions regarding the article's content, please list them here. GregorB (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Dear GregorB and all, I have requested an intervention (because of today's editing attempts), so thank you for your comments!
  1. I find this issue to be a least important, but, as I already presented, there is some kind of consensus in history of science community. Most of them are claiming that Boscovich was a Croatian physicist (philosopher). Of course, Italian's claims cannot be ignored - since he spent most of his life in Italy. In that sense, he was an "Italian scientist" too (in a sense of culture, not ethnicity). This is an average opinion in academic community, as far as I know.
  2. I agree.
  3. I accept your argument. Somebody have already updated that sentence with "according to the Croatian author." That should cover neutrality.
  4. I agree. This was a most shocking part for me. Why would anyone wrote something like that. I have seen some claims that Serbian language was official in Dubrovnik (they are trying to equalize Serbian and Illryian language), but that is also ridiculous claim, since all official contracts in Dubrovnik were translated "ex lingua serviana in hanc nostram illyricam" (from Serbian language to our i Illryian").
  5. In addition, I don't have any problems if someone want to argue that there should be written "Croatian-Italian physicist" or even "Ragusian physicist", but today attempts were trying to delete everything that is connected with word "Croatian". They tried to delete information about Boscovich's nickname, information about article that is proving (or claim to prove) that SANU's claims were wrong, and, of course, information about Boscovich's nationality. I think it is kinda obvious were the problem lies.
  6. In addition to last addition: There was a similar problem on Russian Wikipedia page on Boscovich, in a sense that some Serbian editors were trying to change "Croatian scientist" ("хорватский учёный") to "Serbian scientist". But Russian editors provided Russian references that are claiming that Boscovich was a Croatian scientist, and ended this debate. If someone is interested, these references are: (i) The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Большая советская энциклопедия: Боскович), (ii) Nikolay Bogolyubov: Mathematics. Mechanics. (1983), p.65, (iii) Юрий Храмов - Физики: Биографический справочник (1983),

Best regards

--Everett57 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me just add that I agree #1 is less important - e.g. "Ragusan scientist" is also quite correct. It doesn't really matter as long as it's solidly supported by sources. GregorB (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Your conclusions would be straight-forward if the assumption Everett57 made that no serios source and only SANU claims Boscovich was Serb were correct, however, I invite you gentleman to please take a look at the list of sources I am still pilling-up in the subsection of the previous thread where ou can see plently of highly reliable sources, none of them Serbian, either claiming Boscovich was Serb, or having differetn approaches than saying he was Croatian. Most, I dare to say all, agree his father was Serbian, and all agree to the undisputed fact he was born in Dubrovnik (some directly claiming he was Ragusan scientist). From an historical perspective, during Boscovich lifetime Ragusa was independent. Later it became incorporated into Dalmatia within Austrian first, and then Austro-Hungarian empire. In 1918 it became part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, and same year became part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. At that period it was part of the Zeta Banovina (Montenegro) and only in 1939 it became part of Banovina of Croatia. So Boscovich birthplace became part of Croatia two centuries after his lifetime, and seems to be some mixing-up of things by the tendency of some to think that because nowadays Dubrovnik is part of Croatia, that Ragusan people from centuries back had feld Croatian too. That is a very fringe theory. What we know is that he was Ragusan, with Serbian father and Italian mother, and one source says he was proud Dalmatian. I am tempted to sugest we label him as Ragusan of Serbian-Italian origin. FkpCascais (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My dear friend, thank you for your comments! I have already answered you in under your topic 20.1. You have introduced reference that is proven to be based on false claims. I would like you to provide us with one historical reference (only one is enough) that is dealing with Boscovich origin, and which is not proved to be incorrect. Only one of your references deals seriously with Boscovich's origin - reference by Petronijevic - which is proven (in several references, and I have shared one here) to be based on false statements.
Also, please stop deleting things that you do not like. I can understand that you have problems about Boscovich's origins, but I cannot understand why are you deleting information about his nickname, or reference that states that SANU's claims are wrong. These information are covered with references and I do not see how can they be disputed (analytical statements).
Also, you are trying to input Boscovich's name in Serbian Cyrillic. Why in the world would you do that? Please, explain to us because he never used that alphabet in his life.
But I agree with you on one thing - I am also thinking about introducing "Ragusian" instead of "Croatian", because of Italian's claims (which are serious).
With kind regards.
--Everett57 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
FkpCascais, let me just address what I feel are flaws in your argument. The fact that Croatia as such did not exist in RJB's time is not relevant, i.e. it's just as relevant as the fact that e.g. Serbia did not exist when Vuk Karadžić was born, or that Italy did not exist when Dante or Michelangelo lived.
"What we know is that he was Ragusan, with Serbian father and Italian mother". Strictly speaking, we don't know that. If that were the case, Britannica would not say "Boscovich’s father was a Croat (some sources say Serb) and his mother was Italian."[11]
Having said that, let me also add that, regarding my point #1 above, I feel you may have produced sufficient evidence to convince me the answer to that question is no. Unless there is overriding evidence that we're dealing with false claims, as suggested by Everett above, I'd say "Ragusan" is the best option. GregorB (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I didnt said that Croatia didnt existed back then, just said that Ragusa was not part of it. FkpCascais (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
GregorB as I already said, I am also OK with Ragusian, but only because of serious Italian claims (his mother and fact that he lived most of his life in Italy, and other things). Regarding Serbian origin, I find that "overriding evidence" are archives check from Orahov Dol (archives from 1624., 1733., 1871., 1879 and 1776), as quoted in Kutleša (2012). I asked FkpCascais to provide me one serious reference that is talking about Serbian origins of Boscovich. He failed to do it. (But I would really like to see it, because of reason beyond wikipedia..). --Everett57 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already asked FkpCascais these questions, on several occasions, be he did not reply me. So I will repeat it. Why are you trying to:
  1. Implement Boscovich's name in Serbian Cyrillic - which is not based on any historical evidence. He never used Serbian Cyrillic in any of his writings. So, please, explain why in the world would you do that?
  2. You are removing statement which is analytical (truth per se): sentence which is claiming that there exist article that states that SANU's claims are wrong. Since I have provided reference to that statement, I cannot see how could you justify its removal.
  3. You are removing information about Boscovich's nickname. Again, there is an academic reference behind it. Why would you remove it? I hope that "Croatian" in his nickname does not influence this decision. --Everett57 (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, if "Ragusan scientist" is agreed, we only need to settle those three issues above. GregorB (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

His name in Serbian Cyrillic should not be included.--Zoupan 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This would also obviate the need for the "Names in other languages" section; Latin could be moved to the intro. GregorB (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This all started with Everett57 attempt to take the article closer to the Croatian POV. What was unacceptable was also hsi claim that no serios sources claim he was Serb other than SANU and Serb nationalst authors. I would like to ask you gentleman after seing the sources I pilled up (they are just a sample, there are more, I could go on bringing them) that the caseis not at all as Everett described and that seems that in the academic community there is no clear consensus about Boscovich nationality. From what I noteced, I find that describing Boscovich as Ragusan would be the most correct, as he was indeed citizen of Ragusa and Ragusa was independent at that time.
Then, I would like to ask you gentleman if we can agree his father was Serb and his paternal lineage was Serbian, something many of the sources presented in the previous threads agree on. Is there any opposition over this? FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to understand that the 'nationality' in this case could only be Ragusan. We could add to the intro that his legacy is cherished in Croatia, Italy and Serbia. If his father indeed was of Serb ancestry, it would not change this nationality matter. I think that the last, "Serb" paragraph, in the "competing claims"-section is adequate. Any elaboration on his paternal ancestry should be held at the article of Boscovich's father.--Zoupan 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok I am not that active on Wikipedia but I do check from time to time...so I am here completely neutral. As someone who has edited this page and contributed to the current status quo on the "ethnicity issue" I can tell you safely that there is no concrete proof of his father's ethnicity or any proof whatsoever. Specifically the claims that his father was allegedly a Serb are based (as far as I have seen from Serbian sources) on "oral history" and this is elaborated and discussed on the article Nikola Bošković. I don't know who started this charade (yet again) but I can tell you quite frankly that you're not helping. The article should be left alone as it is. If the edit-warring continues it should be locked for a longer period. Now I am kindly asking you and everyone else who revived this nonsensical issue from the dead - to stop it. Shokatz (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but plenty of neutral non-Serbian sources say his father was Serb. Please dont writte essays about your alleged neutrality when we all know you are a Croatian editor and you are clearly defending here the Croatian anti-Serb POV, so there goes the "neutrality"... Say what you want to say, back it up with sources, that is the way to go, no need for the "completely neutrality charade" FkpCascais (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are many more sources which say he was a Croat and we have a primary source by Boskovic himself referring to Croats "as his own" and Croatian language "as his own". You are beating a dead horse here as usual. Anyway, please spare me of your "neutrality"...everyone knows of your history especially after that charade you made on the Talk:Serbs of Croatia. Only you can turn this status quo state of the article which has remained the same for years now and claim it is now supposedly "anti-Serbian". I am surprised you're still not banned though...but keep at it, I'm sure you'll get there if you continue like this. Shokatz (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again with this nationalistic pro-Serbian pov pushing. FkpCascais you have been warned several times. Do I really need to join in? I especially remember you directly lying and manipulating with sources on Novak Djokovic's talk page. Just a little warning to other editors. Double check FkpCascais's "sources", as he i known for "bending truth"89.164.195.245 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and the section [12] says everything it needs to be said. The most important here is Boskovic's own opinion and that is covered in the major part of the section. 141.136.212.112 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Croats around Dubrovnik in historical records, so maybe this helps someone to conclude something? .

John the Deacon (Italian: Giovanni Diacono or Giovanni da Venezia;. (940- 1018) "Qui (Petrus) dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus... [While he (Peter) was returning from Croatian territory he was deceived through fraud by Michael, duke of the Slavs...] Michael of Zahumlje (he rule in eastern Herzegovina)(913 – 926),

Nikita Honijat (Greek c. 1155-1217), also known as Nikita Akominat ..- speaking of Stefan Nemanja(Serbian ruler) and his activity between 1160 and 1173, says for him: "Without knowing the right thing, he began to conquer Croatia and take over the power of Kotor(Montenegro)

John Skylitzes, Latinized as Ioannes Scylitzes (1040-1101) Bulgarian leaders requested from Mihajlo, who is then rulers of those who are called Croats, who lived in Kotor and Prapratnica(Montenegro)," "Mihailo Vojislavljević (fl. 1050–d. 1081) was the ruler of Duklja(Montenegro), from 1050 to 1081"

George Kedrenos or Cedrenus (Greek:. 11th century) After defeating Bulgaria, neighboring(Bulgaria) Croatian people become subjected to Byzant.(probably a border on Drina river, northwest Montenegro?)

1154 g. - Arabic geographer, cartographer and travel writer Muhammad Al-Idrisi (1099-1164), describing Croatia (Bilad Garwasi), writes in his work "Kitab al Rudjar" "Ragusa, Ragusah(Dubrovnik) is away from Ston 30 miles. (Residents) are Dalmatians who have many boats for long sailing. This is the last town in Croatia (Garwasijah)

Red Croatia The term was first used in one version of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, which is as a whole dated to have been written in 1298–1300. Describing Red Croatia, Dukljanin says that these cities are in Red Croatia: Kotor, Budva, Bar, Ulcinj, Skadar, Trebinje, Pilot etc. and also in these areas: Hum(Zahumlje), Trebinje, Podgorje and Zeta (eastern Herzegovina, Montenegro)

1433 g. - Participants of the Parliament in the Swiss town of Basel, native Czechs ( "GESTIS Bohemorum"), say for cardinal Ivan Stojkovic from from Ragusa(Dubrovnik), which is a city in Croatia: "Johannes de Ragusia, (quae est civitas in Carvatia)"

1486-1487 - German nobleman and pilgrim Conrad von Grünenberg. He did a picture of Dubrovnik, with a fuzzy red inscription in the upper left corner, saying: "Ragusa hobstat in kunglich Croatie" or "Dubrovnik is the capital of the Kingdom of Croatia". Also states that Dubrovnik "ist die kunglich hobstat in Croattyen" (1) or "the royal cape in Croatia" and "Erizbistum, und hat das gantz kungrich croatyen" (2) or "archbishopric, whose jurisdiction encompasses the entire Croatian kingdom.

1506 g - English traveler and pilgrim Richard Guylford describing Dubrovnik (in Old English): "In Dubrovnik they were most impressed by the fortresses of the city, which is the most powerful and strongest city in the country of Slavonia or Dalmatia and in the province of the Croatian kingdom (" the moste stronge and myghty Towne [...] in the Coutre of Slauanye or Dalmacie and in the Prouynce of the Royalme of Croacie ") 

The Senate of the Republic of Dubrovnik rebuilt the old ban and made even a decision by 1745 forbidding the stay of Orthodox priests in the city for more than eight days.His commissar in Vienna on May 9, 1618 in connection with the Barabants was reported as follows (in the translation of V. Košćak): "Let us know also whether we can get the barbarbants and in what number, but that they are Croats, our tongue and the Catholics (Crouati de nostra lingua e cattolici)

Register of Bosnian army before Battle of Mohač from 1526. (Turkish administration) Croats are mentioned in the sandžak (southern Serbia), Nikšić (central Montenegro)

Derviş Mehmed Zillî (25 March 1611 – 1682), known as Evliya Çelebi Mentione Croats in Gacko (eastern Herzegovina), Bay of Kotor(Montenegro) Nikšić (central Montenegro)

Mehmed-paša Sokolovic, the great vizier of the Ottoman Empire, issued in 1566 an order saying: "Sultan give commandment that priests in Budim, Timisoara and Dubrovnik and from all Croatian people do not ask for charity if this people belong to the Greek patriarch (orthodoxy)

Peter Tolstoy is in his Travel Guide to Italy and to the island of Malta 1697-1698 He mentione Croatians in the Bay of Kotor(Montenegro) Around this monastery by the towns live Ragusans(residents of Dubrovnik) - naval captains, sailors and astronomers (...) speak all Slavic languages, and Italian know and all are called Hervati(Croats), they are Catholics."

In Dubrovnik, the personal name Hrvatin(Croatin) is mentioned at least in 1281 and somewhat later mentioned in Pelješac (1301) and in Konavle (1397) Personal names Hrvatin(Croatin) (since 1301), Hrvajin (from 1475), Hrvo (from 1475), Hrvoje (from 1475) and Hrvat (Croat) (from 1475), in the Middle Ages we find ourselves, all over Eastern Herzegovina: from Bisce to Mostar through Zažablja, Popova,Trebinje to Biograd near Nevesinje (eastern Herzegovina), and Plane by Bileća. In Boka Kotorska, Paštrović and Bar, Croatian surnames , Hrvatić / Hrvetić, Hrvojević, Hrvović and Hrvatić are recorded from Stoliva in Boka Kotorska(Montenegro) to Bar(Montenegro) at least from XV. century. The last name Rvat(Croat) was recorded at Nikšić(central Montenegro).

Istanbul... We should mention an interesting fact that the name "Croat" sometimes were used and members of other nations, primarily Montenegrins. Their representative to the authorities in the Ottoman sources until the 1870s called the "chief of Croats", or Hirvat Başi ("Hrvat-baša"), in the Italian and French variants of "capo croato" or "chef des Croates" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.36.106 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Joseph_Boscovich/Archive_4&oldid=1257839329"