Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ruđer Bošković said he wasn't Italian

I demand that users like Grifter72 don't remove information about Bošković's denying to be Italian. Coming from the mouth of Hans Ullmaier from Aachen who wrote a book about Bošković's theory. Thank you Philosopher12 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC) http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac386.nsf/AllWebDocs/Rugjer_Boskovic_je_nas_suvremenik_

It is important to know if really Hans Ullmaier said this (the book, not an article from some website), and where he found this as primary source, because Italy as a nation did not exist in that period. I know he was not an Italian: he was a Ragusan-Lombard scientist, but (really important in XVIII century) he was a Jesuit. I don't like your nationalist battle. --Grifter72 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rude, I don't want to start nationalist battles, just to get the right information on the wikipedia. :)

But, on the topic, I must say I don't agree with you (with all due respect and not wanting for this to sound rude). Italy did exist as a nation, for example why would then Machiavelli's first goal in "Il principe" for the prince be to unify "enslaved" (what he said) italian people and unify Italy? But there wasn't modern nationalism but early nationalism, which can be dated back to late middle ages.

Also, I don't understand what would mean that really important thing in XVIII. century would be that he was a Jesuit? If you mean that religion was important in that century, I would say that I again don't agree with you - religion was much less important than in 19th, 20th century or even today, and much less important than in 16th and 17th century. And that i can prove from various books, if you want them i can list them.

I also think that it would be fair to write that Italy today is nation that gives most resources for researching Bošković's works and legacy (what Ullmaier said).

For the other part I'll find direct resource where Bošković said he wasn't Italian and make it as reference here next week. Hans Ullmaier on the link says most of his information come from "various resources", Dadić, Marković and Marinović. From that link is almost the whole paragraph "Competing claims...". Philosopher12 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I found in book of Žarko Dadić, member of Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences the following statement: "He never allowed anyone to call him Italian although he spent a substantial part of his life and major contributions to its culture by teaching at Italian universities and founding the Brera Observatory. Thus, when d'Alambert called him "an Italian mathematician with reputation in mathematics" in a controversy over the scope of the Earth, Bošković replied in a note to his Voyage astronomique et geographique by stating that our author is Dalmatian from Dubrovnik and not Italian.*

• Voyage astronomique et gographique, p. 450." - Žarko Dadić, Ruđer Bošković, page 51 - 52.

I pictured the page in the book, anyone wishing to see it, i can upload it. Philosopher12 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here you can see the book: http://books.google.it/books?id=ZxAOAAAAQAAJ&dq=Voyage%20astronomique%20et%20geographique%2C%20dans%20l'%C3%89tat%20de%20l'Eglise&pg=PA449#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is written in French. This is the sentence: "Nous observerons ici en premier lieu que notre Auteur est Dalmate & de Raguse, non Italien". But, are you sure that this note was written by "Boscovich"? It seems to be written by another guy that speaks about the autor in third person. But I'm not sure, I'm not French mother tongue... this can be a formalism.--Grifter72 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! On the other hand, I don't know french either, but it seems he was talking about himself in the third person, as Dadić translated it ("Bošković replied..."). :) Philosopher12 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image(s) Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Croatian dinar 100a.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

His Philosophy?

There should be a section on his philosophy, personal and published (even if only implied in his "scientific" works). Just because he was a Jesuit doesn't automatically mean he was intellectually "Catholic" (as recent decades have made blindingly clear). I would like to know, for example, how he inspired Friedrich Nietzsche. Here's a reference from the Will to power article:

Whitlock, Greg. "Roger Boscovich, Benedict de Spinoza and Friedrich Nietzsche: The Untold Story." Nietzsche Studien, 25 (1996) pp 200–220.

JKeck (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

edits by User:Ljuboni

I can't remember how many times we've had these discussions...

User:Ljuboni, I would also advise against grouping a bunch of different edits into one - instead make one:

• one for the hatnote - which I disagree with because we don't seem to have a major ambiguity there in English
  • (but I see now that it's crammed, so I'll make a disambiguation page instead)
• for the Croatian->Ragusan changes
• for the reference to Enciclopedia Italiana (also link that)

The referenced Italian page is not the Enciclopedia, but a page at edizionenazionaleboscovich.it that says "La croata Ruđer Josip Bošković", and it seems to be making a slanted point of its own on the Italian origin, so it hardly seems like a particularly reliable source for Serbian origin.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Don`t want to appear as a "bad man" or in bad faith, but analyzing User:Ljuboni`s contributions and from previous experiences, I am thinking that the sole purpose of this account is to promote a bunch of extremist Serbian political ideas. Every time this account "activates" it creates disruption. Adrian (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Never heard of such an account.. ;) -- Director (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

/Replacement of theses/

I do not promote extremist ideas.

But, some of your political ideas, User:Iadrian yu, we can see on your English and Serbian user pages.

Your appropriation of recognized ethnic groups and marking them as they belong to other ethnic group (to which you belong), through your texts and changes in articles. Also, you advocate to changing borders of countries in Europe. These are ideas that you represent.

Your opinion is malicious, and you should show some proofs if you say that. Otherwise you will truly be a "bad man".

PS. This is not a place to write your opinions about other users.

Ljuboni (talk)

I don`t believe that could be understood from my wiki page, but whatever. I don`t really care for this kind of comments, please if you contact me, refrain from various personal analysis or opinions. [1] Adrian (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am not stating my opinion "out of the blue" - but based on your account`s contributions.Adrian (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also refrain from moving or manipulating other people comments. Adrian (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Joy [shallot], Unlike you, who are currently engaged in proving a Croatian origin of Ruđer Bošković, I put "Ragusan" because there are competing claims regarding of ethnic identity of Ruđer Bošković (Serbian, Croatian and Italian). "Ragusan" (which means "from Dubrovnik/Ragusa) is something that is unquestionable, which is not case with ethnic origin of Ruđer Bošković.

The referenced Italian page is encyclopedia! It is a official Italian encyclopaedia - "L'Enciclopedia Italiana", published by the Institute of Italian Encyclopaedia. And this is a link:

• http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ruggero-giuseppe-ruder-josip-boscovich_(Dizionario-Biografico)/

If the Italians as a third interested party in its own Encyclopedia have written about "Ruđer's Serbian origin", and I wrote that he is "Ragusan" (as a neutral point of view), and you wrote that he is "Croatian", is it mine or your "national stuff"?! I thin it's your national (Croatian) point of view.

I think, everything is clear. Ljuboni (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While "Ragusan" would be a nice compromise it is unfortunately not a nationality. An Italian national encyclopaedia can be viewed as a non-neutral source on issues concerning claims of Italian nationality. It is also not an English-language source, and it is a tertiary source rather than a secondary one. -- Director (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a nationality in the modern understanding of the term, and especially not in the Balkan understanding of the term. But in the Western concept nationality = citizenship.

Italian language sources are just as relevant as sources in Croatian and Serbian. The Italian Encyclopaedia do not claim Italian nationality, but regional identity (from Bergamo).

I think "Ragusan" is compromise and the best solution, something that is acceptable to all. At least, he really was from Dubrovnik. Ljuboni (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. "Ragusan" is not really a compromise, on second thought. It is part of the Italian point of view which advocates the existence of a separate Latin "Dalmatian", or in this case "Ragusan", nationality. This person was a South Slav, a Croat or a Serb more specifically. It is only because these two nationalities are not distinguished fully until the mid-20th century that these debates arise. Imo it is ridiculous to even try and distinguish between Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins etc. on any objective basis before the 19th century. And that goes double for a region like the Dubrovnik hinterland.

Just to have some fun, lets ask the question: what about Montenegrins? Isn't it more likely that he is Montenegrin rather than a Serb if he supposedly comes from a mostly-Montenegrin-populated village in Montenegro? Maybe he's Montenegrin... ;) See how these considerations are meaningless?

I will say, though, that if you continue to push your opposed edits through edit-warring you'll likely just end up blocked pretty quickly. -- Director (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Ragusan", "Dalmatian", "Slav" - his self-designation.

It is not true. It doesn't advocate a separate Latin "Dalmatian". "Dalmatian" means Dalmatian (with all the meanings). One more mistake. Ruđer wasn't just a South Slav, but he was a Roman also. That is correct, I agree - Serbs and Croats are not distinguished fully until the mid-20th century. Especially in the regions such as: Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Bosnia Herzegovina etc.

We can't compare Serbian and Croatian national identities with Bosniak and Montenegrin. Historically, it's completely different.

He must to be a Montenegrin, if he comes from Montenegro? Well, if Ruđer originally comes from Herzegovina, then he is neither a Serb nor Croat, but Herzegovian, right?

Btw, I'm the one of those who suggested to write about Ruđer neutrally, as he is from Dubrovnik or that he is South Slav (and Roman). But if someone insists on Bošković's Croatian origin, then I will add references in favor of his Serbian origin.

My opposed edits are with references. And if I end up blocked, I'll be back ;-) There are others who will control the page. In any case, if it stays like this, I have no reason to change anything. Ljuboni (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm correct you are saying that people from Dubrovnik before 1806. are actually not Croats, i. e. they could be Serbs as much as Croats.

Not only that, but you are referencing to modern serbian works claiming that Bošković was a Serb? Well then, there are many problems with your theory. 1.) We should make a differnce between nationality and ethnicity in English language. His nationality is Dubrovčanin, or Ragusan. I think we all agree on that; but then there is a problem of ethnicity. 2.) Is Bošković an ethnic Serb is to ask whether serbian blood runs through his veins. That is, is anyone of his relatives a Serb, his father or mother? This we may never know - there are claims from serbian side that his father was a Serb from village "Orahov Do", totally biased and unplausible. Not only that this is unplausible, it dates only to 1922. If you find a source older than this year claiming that Bošković is a Serb, please put your reference here. 3.) Claim that Bošković is a Serb dates back to 1922., when J. M. Child made a translation of Bošković's "Theory of natural philosophy" into English. The introduction for this great translation was given to serbian philosopher Branislav Petronijević, and the whole project was funded by Belgrade government (Kingdom SHS). Petronijević (in 1922.) stated that Bošković father was a Serb, for which he had no real evidence, because he helped some author to write about serbian monasteries which he visited. Quite stupid reason to declare someone to be a Serb, isn't it? ( http://books.google.hr/books/about/A_Theory_of_Natural_Philosophy.html?id=dsancQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y ) Actually, was there any difference between Serbs and Croats to foreigners - it is all the same to some Englishman. What makes a difference between these two nations? It must be religion, language and culture. But let us see what will Bošković himself say to us. He will say to his sister that he didn't forget his Croatian language. And that he is a Catholic.

Yes, I know what you are going to say, in 19th century there was a "Serb Catholic" circle in Dubrovnik. But, what serbian side is frequently ommiting is that this circle was small and irrelevant, and that anyone can present themselves as they wish; I can present myself as Catholic Syrian. Furthermore, that circle appeared 100 years after Bošković's death and was funded by serbian government. ( http://www.jstor.org/pss/2496046 )

So, Bošković (HE HIMSELF) said he was a Catholic who spoke Croatian language. YOU have reference not older than 90 years. In first (1958 source), English author mentioned that Bošković's father was a Serb (guess where he saw that, you have one guess!). Other referneces are by Serbian nationalists. The first claims that he was a Serb because they called him "Vlaj" in Dubrovnik, and that his grand father was from some Montenegrin village. First, "Vlajs" are mostly Catholic Croats, people from Dalmatian hinterland, Zagora. Second, in Boka kotorska Catholics were mostly Croats or Italians.

It all comes down to whether his father was Orthodox christian - for that you have no real evidence. Maybe I can then put my nationalistic references claiming Serbs are orthodox Croats, and the problem would be resolved. Or that Tzar Dušan's father was actually a Croat from Međugorje. Just see your referneces - serbian nationalists with no real evidence on one side, on the other side Bošković himself said he was Catholic who spoke Croatian language. Philosopher12 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And that "serbian lineage" based on "various sources" - these are not sources (sources means it dates to Bošković's time in 18th century - his letters or writings etc.), that is literature from 20th century. Give us some real reference, not internet pages and Serbian propaganda. Books dealing with Bošković's life and works only. Because I can find tons of encyclopedias declaring he is a Croat:

Der Brockhau in fünfzehn Bänden, 1996; Meyers Neues Lexikon, 1993; Nowa encyklopedia powszechna, 1995; Great Soviet Encyclopedia are all listing Bošković as a Croat. Philosopher12 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian and English sources aro not Serbian, of course.

1) Yes,ethnicity is problem. But for me, not necessarily. Ruđer can be the South Slav, which he certainly was. Resolved problem.

2) Is Bošković an ethnic Croat? If you find a source older than 1922. claiming that Bošković is a Croat, please put it here.

3) It's just a "Croatian interpretation" and point of view. You should not comment on statements from Serbian sources and prove that Ruđer was not a Serb, but should prove that he was a Croat. If that's your goal. We all know very well that Ruđer was Catholic.

Where is the proof that he had told her sister that he did not forget "his Croatian"?! Your interpretation is irrelevant as regards the number of Serbs Catholic. Banac opinion is his personal opinion and represent a Croatian point of view, as well as everything else you wrote and it's without proper proof. It is a conflict of interest with a Serbian point of view. Other quotes and comments are biased, based on nationalistic ideas and Croatian propaganda.

You can put your references about Tzar Dušan, but it's your problem and I see you're not a serious guy. This is out of topic and I don't want to comment this. In fact, I don't care.

It doesn't matter if Ruđer's fater was Orthodox Christian or not. It's a matter of origin. Bošković never said he was "Catholic who spoke Croatian language"! You did not post some authentic proof. The reason is simple - there is no such a proof.

If sources means it dates to Bošković's time (18th century), then you should specify the sources from the 18th century!

Ljuboni (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact still remains that the 1922 Petronijević source comes centuries after Bošković's time and is based on little more than a theory. A theory which has large flaws, as already shown (village doesn't exist, no other proof, just speculation). Until a reliable source could be found, the Petronijević one cannot be used.

Is Bošković an ethnic Croat? If you find a source older than 1922. claiming that Bošković is a Croat, please put it here. Where is the proof that he had told her sister that he did not forget "his Croatian"?!

It is in the source that is referenced. Žarko Dadić uses actual text from Bošković's own letters from his siblings: "Some time later, in another letter to his brother, Bošković exclaimed Evviva Haddick e i nostri Croati (Long live Haddick and our Croats)". From one of his letters: (2 July 1757) "U pismu od 2. srpnja 1757. javlja bratu da je prije dva dana ispod gradskih zidina proslo 1200 hrvata, a toga dana 1000. One prve gledao je sa zvjezdarnice velikim dalekozorom a druge je zelio vidjeti..." I was cut off there, but it definitely mentions his affinity with Croatians.

There are more examples, but unfortunately I don't have full access to the book --Jesuislafete (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will take some time these days and collect more Bošković's sources, and references from 19th century by eminent croatian historians. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything seems to be predicated on this work:

Slobodan Šćepanović "O porijeklu porodice i korijenima predaka Ruđera Boškovića". Istorijski zapisi 3/1995. Podgorica, 1995.

It is quoted in http://www.arhimed.rs.ba/lica/biography/boskovic/zoran.htm as the main source for:

Po muškoj liniji, njegovi preci su Srbi iz mjesta Orahov Do (Orahovo) na obodu Popovog polja u Hercegovini – gdje se i danas nalazi kuća, više puta prepravljana, u kojoj se, po predanju, rodio Ruđerov otac. Ti preci su se u Orahov Do doselili – kako tvrde neki poznavaoci – kao Potkravići ili Pokrajčići, a razmnožili kao Boškovići.

Where is this predanje (tradition) documented? Who are these neki poznavaoci (some people in the know)?

Further:

A, što se tiče grba Boškovićâ – piše Atlagić – najvjerovatnije je da su se u početku služili grbom Pokrajčića, s njim se vjerovatno služio Božo Pokrajčić, otac Nikolin. Kada su stvarno Boškovići dobili plemstvo, teško je utvrditi, najvjerovatnije da su ga kao Pokrajčići dobili 1595. godine, pa i ranije, i da je na osnovu toga plemstvo i grb dobila porodica Bošković 15.4.1718. godine. Ta podjela plemstva upisana je u Liber Regius, br. 27, str. 49. Međutim, kako i pomenuti heraldičar sam priznaje, teško je pak reći na kojeg se Boškovića taj podatak odnosi, i da li se uopšte odnosi na ovu (Ruđerovu – nap. Z.P.) porodicu Bošković.

This references:

Marko ATLAGIĆ, Grbovi nekih srpskih plemićkih porodica u Dubrovniku, Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Prištini, br. XXX/2000, Priština, 2000.

Further:

Tragajući dalje, Slobodan Šćepanović je, na osnovu dokumenata iz dubrovačkog arhiva, ranije pisanih djela i sačuvane usmene tradicije, došao do zaključka da je Ruđerov čukundjeda, u stvari, Boško Stanišin Šćepanović iz Rovaca u Crnoj Gori**.

Is Slobodan Šćepanović a reliable source (e.g. a known historian)? (Googling him didn't help me much on that.) Have these same archive documents been vetted by another reliable source? IOW are his aforementioned conclusions proved or supported by someone else?

Njegov sin i Ruđerov pradjeda – vjerovatno se zvao Nikola – doselio je u Orahov Do i postao rodonačelnik tamošnjeg ogranka Boškovića (rodu je dao ime po svom ocu Bošku). Taj Nikola je imao sinove Matiju* i Boška, Ruđerovog djeda. Boško je sa suprugom Damjanom (?), pored Ruđerovog oca Nikole, stekao još i Iliju, Božu i Tomu; potomci ove trojice prešli su na latinsku vjeru i, pod prezimenima Kristić i Tomičić, sve do naših dana žive u Orahovom Dolu i broje oko dvadeset kuća. Šćepanović, dalje, dokazuje da su Boškovići iz Orahovog Dola samo jedan od ogranaka šireg, brojnog i razgranatog bratstva Boškovića, čiji su djelovi nastanjivali druge krajeve Hercegovine (okolina Stoca, dolina Neretve i sl.), kao i u Crnoj Gori (Gornji i Donji Kolašin).

Why all this vjerovatno (probably), or the question mark next to Damjana? That sounds like inference. The author is described as dokazuje (proving) these claims. Is his inference sound and has he proven his case?

None of this seems immediately convincing, even the referenced sources themselves seem to be unsure of facts and are instead constructing an argument, so I see no obvious reason to give them extra weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are references, by different sources. People have studied, some data are not quite sure, so they wrote "probably", which is OK.

Really? And what is with Croatian sources? Do they have "weight"? Serbian historians, at least, research Ruđer's origin, and what is with Croatian? They wrote only that he was a Croat and that's all. It's ridiculous.Ljuboni (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Furhtermore, I have new evidence for Ljuboni:

You said: "Is Bošković an ethnic Croat? If you find a source older than 1922. claiming that Bošković is a Croat, please put it here." And that is what I shall do:

Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski: Glasoviti Hrvati prošlih vjekova. (Famous Croats of Past Centuries), 1886, page 225. [2] Kukuljević stated that Bošković's father came from Hercegovina to Dubrovnik. But not a word about him being a Serb or Orthodox christian. Furthermore, Kukuljević states that Bošković is a Croat: "podupirao je Boškovića i novi papa Kliment XIII., osobiti prijatelj Hrvata." ("Bošković was supported by the new pope Clement XIII, a special friend of Croats.")

Franjo Rački: Rugjer Bošković. Životopisna crta. (Bošković's biography), 1887. Rad JAZU 90 (Work of Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences, Zagreb) [3] Franjo Rački stated the same as Kukuljević. Bošković's father came from Orahovo to Dubrovnik, but both families (from his mother's and father's side) were honourable families in Dubrovnik. Not a word about Serbia, Orthodox faith or similar.

You also said: "If sources means it dates to Bošković's time (18th century), then you should specify the sources from the 18th century!"

And here they are: Bošković's correspondence published in "Work of Yugoslavian Academy of Arts and Sciences". Vladimir Varićak: "Ulomak Boškovićeve korespondencije." Rad JAZU 185, 1911. [4]

Bošković said: "Eviva Haddich e i nostri Croati." Page 377. Bošković viewed Croats as "nostri", as HIS people.

Bošković said: "Passarono ier l'altro, se non mi ignanno, sotto loe mura 1200 Croati, e questa mattina sono passati 1000 Guardi i quelli dalla specola con un gran cannochiale, e questi sono ito cola carozza sulla strada a vederli, e ho salutati gli Vfficiali, Dobar put, i srecchiu. Odgovorili su Sluga podnigsen." Page 345.

I don't think Bošković was ever connected with anything serbian before 1922. I stated my firm sources that prove Bošković considered himself a Croat, or something close to Croatian people. I don't remember Bošković ever mentioned anything about Serbia or Serbs, or, for that matter, Serbian scientist even knew something about Bošković. I stated literature by eminent croatian historians from 19th century. Now, are you able to state your sources, or literature older than 1922 by eminent serbian scientists (I don't believe Pejašinović and Šćepanović are eminent, I mean, who are those people)? Or sources in which Bošković ever mentioned Serbs or Serbia. I think it is high time we resolve this serbian speculations and spurious statements for good. Philosopher12 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to remind you, you don't have a single book dealing with Bošković - only internet pages, references from encyclopedias and articles - third grade literature. And no sources. Philosopher12 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is authentic, but "nostri" means "nostri", NOT "his" people! I can say "Our Croats, Slavic brothers", or even "My Croats" but that doesn't mean I am Croat. However, I don't see the document.

There are books about dealing with Bošković, as well as scientific papers by university professors and academics. But I do not want to go further in the discussion of national origin of Ruđer. I suggested a neutral solution, but you and some others are those that promote Ruđer's "Croatian" origin, although there is no proof for that. But since you will not to stop with that, with changing article and deleting Serbian references, you provoke with your behavior. You will not resolve anything, especially not "Serbian speculations and spurious statements", because you are malicious when you talk about the Serbs. It can solve someone who is more objective and someone who will not carry out "national policy"!

Generally, these are not proofs of national identity and yet we don't see authentic documents. I thought you are a bit more serious, but your conclusions are frivolous. You are probably young. Ljuboni (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

I've posted all the links, I don't know what else can I do. Step by step: 1.) Go to this page: http://dizbi.hazu.hr/?sitetext=107 2.) Select number and year of the publication and that is all. Rački's work is number 90, year 1887. Bošković's correspondence is number 185, year 1911. I've clearly posted all the all links and stated pages of those works. They are Bošković's genuine letters from 1757. Do you want me te go to Milan and picture them or what? He clearly said: "our Croats", "my Croats". He said "I am Dalmatian from Ragusa." [5] It is more than enough for 18th century person from Ragusa, since direct sources are scarce.

Yes, there are books, and (I think) every one of them is counting Bošković as a Croat. Žarko Dadić [6], and his book "Ruđer Bošković", Ivan Supek's [7] book "Ruđer Bošković", and to count non-croatian author, Hans Ullmaier's book "Puncta, particulae et phaenomena. Der dalmatinische Gelehrte Roger Joseph Boscovich und seine Naturphilosophie." (His view of Bošković's origin is here: [8]

But, enough with my refernces, I could just number them all day. I've aked you kindly to state your serious references about Ruđer Bošković before 1922., to prove that "Serbian theory" of Ruđer Bošković is older than Petronijević. You've failed on that. I've asked you to give us some books that would promote Bošković's Serbian origin. You've failed on that too. I've asked you to give us sources where Bošković mentioned Serbs. And you've failed on that, again. The only thing you have is speculation about his "ćukun djed." Don't you find that funny?

I have stated all my references and sources clearly in the post above. I have answered your questions with strong proof.

But the only thing you did is complain, and constantly repeat after me. Is that what you consider a serious discussion? I propose we report this problem to others who will judge it accordingly. If you edit this article again, I'm going to report you, ask that your account be suspended or banned, and that this article is locked to protect it from future edits. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[[9]] Philosopher12 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I have reported the problem. Anyone wishing to express his opinion can do it here

Last edits are not mine, but yours! If you edit this article again and especially if you remove Serbian references, I'm going to report you, ask that your account be suspended or banned!

Point of view of Croatian authors is not relevant in terms of origin of Ruđer Bošković, or it is just as relevant as Italian and Serbian point of view. Therefore, no one has the moral right to remove someone else's references.

Interpretations of Croatian authors claiming his Croatian origin, while interpretations of Serbian authors claiming his Serbian origin. Croats consider Bošković Croatian, while Serbs consider him Serbian scientist. And it will not change by removing and adding references from both side. We all know the document where it is recorded that he was "Dalmatian from Ragusa.", so not a Croat, but a Dalmatian! Dalmatians were/are Italians, Croats and Serbs.

I suggested a neutral point of view, which was accepted by some on both sides, but you weren't accept and you continue to remove Serbian references and parts of the article. I'm ending my discussion with you, since your only goal is appropriation of Bošković.

Now the article is protected, thanks to Elen of the Roads and (more or less) neutral. You can put references to support Croatian point of view, but if I see that you remove Serbian or Italian references, you will be reported. Best regards, Ljuboni (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what that noticeboard is for. I have protected the article for three days. If you guys can't agree, pick an appropriate method of dispute resolution. Note that I have blocked for 72hrs the Serbian IP who made the most recent edits for edit warring, as they seem to be reverting everyone else. If one of you knows that it was you editing logged out, please refrain from editing for 72hrs, to avoid being caught out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Serbian IP was user:Ljuboni. If you look at his edit history, his message on user:Philosopher12 talk page is‎ extremely similar to Ljuboni's writing style. The histories of both the discussion page and article page show similar times with the IP edits and Ljuboni's edits.--Jesuislafete (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are deviating from the point again. Are there any sources older than 1922 that say Bošković was a Serb? And I don't understand why you think the Croatian or Serb argument is equal. He was born in Dubrovnik (today in Croatia) to a Catholic Slavic father from a village in Herzegovina with a majority Croat population. His own writings and letters has mentions of Croats, Croatians, Croatian language, etc. So how do you expect Wikipedia NOT to mention he is Croatian or associated with Croatian people? The source is a book written by a Croatian author using Bošković's own letters and writings. It is NOT speculation like the 1922 source you keep bringing up. I have a difficult time comprehending that he can be seen as a Serb when there is no evidence of this prior to 1922 I have seen yet. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I am not implementing Bošković as a "Croatian" scientist. I am saying that he has the right to be claimed by Croatia as one of their own, just like I think Italy has the right to claim him as one of their own (but not as an "Italian"). But there is no credible evidence showing that Bošković has any ties to Serbia or with Serbian people, so the paragraph claiming him a Serb in the article should not belong. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter that there are sources older than 1922 that say Bošković was a Serb? Will it change something

Yes. Read the previous discussions above. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We talk about references, not about arguments. Do you want to say that Croatian references (or "Croatian arguments") are more important than Serbian? I have already given the answers to these questions that you ask me again. Also, I wrote to Philosopher12 "you can put references to support Croatian point of view, but not to remove Serbian or Italian references." I expect Wikipedia not to mention he is Croat, because there is no proof that he was Croat, and to mention that exists competing claims for Bošković's nationality (not only Croatian, but also Serbian and Italian). Croats translate "Dalmatian" into "Croatian", "Illyrian language" into "Croatian" etc. There is no any mention of Ruđerć's "Croatian language"! Btw. You implement Bošković as a "Croatian" scientist. If Bošković has the right to be claimed by Croatia, then also has the right to be claimed by Serbs and Italians.

Italians, yes. Serbs, absolutely not. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Bošković's with Serbian people: "Bošković" is an old Serbian surname/family name. Most people with surname Bošković are Serbs today. Many famous citizens of Dubrovnik left clear records about their Serbian origin. Dubrovnik's speech was/is part of the dialect which is base of Standard Serbian language. There are also other facts that connect Bošković and the Serbs. Thus Bošković was a South Slav and spoke their language (as a native) is enough that Serbs consider Ruđer their own. Ljuboni (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments continue to be speculation and original research. Stick to facts on this article only. Do not talk about what you think are old Serbian surnames. You so far have not provided any sources that show anyone believed Bošković was a Serb before a 1922 Serbian nationalist wrote so. That is what is the matter. --Jesuislafete (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion, but general Serbian opinion and Croats think in the same way, just they think about Bošković as he was a Croat. As I said, there are several books and articles, not only in Serbian, before 1922 about Bošković. OK, if you think that will change something, here you are:

Kosta Stojanović "Atomistika Ruđera Boškovića" (1891); Quote: "U Dubrovniku su bile dve familije Bošković poznate. Jedna od tih, koja nije bila u srodnim familijarnim vezama, sa drugom, dala je srpskom narodu čuvenog Boškovića, o kome ćemo govoriti." So, what do you have to say now? Ljuboni (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I say there is no book by that name (at least I couldn't find it). There is one called "Atomistika: jedan deo iz filozofije Ruđera Josifa Boškovića", is that the book you're referring to? If you can't provide a link, state the page where you found that sentence, and I'll check it. With that, you've only proved Serbs wrote about Bošković before 1922; since it was written in 1891., author probably considered Croats and Serbs as one nation. There is no evidence his father was an orthodox christian Serb before some Serb scientist in 1922 wrote so, or that Bošković considered himself Serb, or that he mentioned them. Your claims still rest on speculation. Philosopher12 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

By your analogy Ljuboni, half of notable Serbs, beginning from Teodosije Hilandarac shouldn't be listed as "Serbs" since they didn't explicitly state their "nationality." If the fact that Bošković is a South Slav is enough to consider him Serbian, then the fact that Mihajlo Vojislavljević, Teodosije Hilandarac, are also South Slavs is enough to consider them Croatian. Dubrovnik is by its culture, religion, art and language connected with Dalmatia, and Dalmatia is one of the pillars of Croatian culture. Croatian and Serbian sources for Bošković are not equal - we have sources, and literature written by eminent historians and academics. You have third grade literature and internet pages by unknown people of questionable background. Philosopher12 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Names in other languages - Strange citation needed tags

Citation needed for Ruđer Bošković`s name in other languages? Is this for real? Adrian (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that is kind of stupid. -- Director (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of dispute

User Ljuboni has given the following sources as proof that Bošković was a Serb:

1 Dr. A. L. Mackay "Roger Boscovich: a 20th century mind in the 18th century". London: New Scientist, 1958. http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~lord/webfiles/Alan/CVM09.pdf

Funny how the next issue of the New Scientist printed this letter in the next issue. From what I could gather, Dr. Mackay is a professor of crystallography, not a biographer. How does his article mean Bošković is a Serb?

2 Slobodan Šćepanović "O porijeklu porodice i korijenima predaka Ruđera Boškovića". Istorijski zapisi 3/1995. Podgorica, 1995.

Who is Slobodan Šćepanović? The only thing I could find is that he was a Yugoslav scientist of some sort? He claims Bošković is from Montenegro, but what evidence does he use to back it up?

3 Zoran Pejašinović "Ruđer Bošković - Framework for scientific biography" http://www.arhimed.rs.ba/lica/biography/boskovic/zoran.htm

Is this guy the Serbian high school teacher? He writes: "Ти преци су се у Орахов До доселили – како тврде неки познаваоци – као Поткравићи или Покрајчићи" roughly translates to "those ancestors then in Orahov Do settled down--as some experts say--as Potkravići or Pokrajčići." Where does he get this information from? What evidence does he present? I could find none. He even sources Slobodan Šćepanović, who relied said he relied on documents and "oral history"(!) to come to these conclusions.

4 Walter Brandmüller, Egon Johannes Greipl, Catholic Church, Congregatio Sancti Officii, Pontificia Accademia delle scienze: "Copernico, Galilei e la chiesa". Firenze : L.S. Olschki, 1992.

From the title, I can see this is a book on Copernicus and Galileo. It mentions once that his father is a Serb and mother an Italian

5 Giorgio Inglese, Alberto Asor Rosa, Luigi Trenti, Paolo Procaccioli: "Letteratura italiana: dizionario bio- bibliografico e indici. Gli autori". Torino: Einaudi, 1990.

I couldn't find Bošković in here.

6 L'Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana: L'Enciclopedia Italiana. BOSCOVICH (Bošković), Ruggero Giuseppe (Ruđer Josip)[1]

I couldn't find this either.

--Jesuislafete (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User Ljuboni needs to provide reliable, neutral, non-biased, (non-Serbian) and peer reviewed sources to support his statements. Jingiby (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesuislafete, how does any of your references mean Bošković is a Croat?

Hypocritical! You asked for the source before 1922, in which is written that Bošković was of Serbian origin. I quoted the source, and you left without comment, because you were convinced that such a thing doesn't exist. However:

Kosta Stojanović: "Atomstika Ruđera Boškovića". Niš: 1891; Quote: "In Dubrovnik, the two families were known as Bošković. One of these, which was not related with the second, gave the to the Serbian people famous Bošković, about whom we are talking . "

L'Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana: L'Enciclopedia Italiana: www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ruggero-giuseppe-ruder-josip-boscovich_(Dizionario-Biografico)

And I can not find Bošković's letters in which he writes about the Croats. You can't place them here?

Not only has it already been linked in the discussion page, it is linked in the article's page. Here, it is again. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Croatian references are mainly related to the Croatian authors, without any analysis of Boskovic's origin and without any evidence, only allegations that he was "Croat." If you continue to delete references that supports Serbian point of view , then you will need to delete Croatian references also or someone else will do it. What will we do then?

The Croatian author referenced uses direct quotes from Bošković's letters and writings. Photographs of some of his letters are in the book. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you can ask why the Croatian government had stop to printing banknote with the portrait of Ruđer Bošković?!

Who said they had to stop printing it? How is this have anything to do with the argument? --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

After all, if you are so objective, then you should not delete Serbian references, since they show how much Croatian references are "serious". Why do you bother Serbian references? Just because they "say" that Bošković was of Serbian origin. Ljuboni (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be the last time I repeat this: my main argument is that Croatia has the right to claim him because he was from their territory. Croatia and Italy have the right to claim him because 1) he spent most of his life in the two places 2) he was a son of an ethnic Italian mother and Catholic Slavic father 3) Bošković's own letters mention his affinity for Croats as mentioned before. Meanwhile, where is the evidence linking him to Serbia? Or Montenegro? He was born in Dubrovnik his father in Orahov Do. I see no connection to Serbia. There is no noteworthy evidence but speculation, and Wikipedia is not a speculation site. --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Serb origin

Serbian sources use the fact he declared as Serb of Roman Catholic religion. Branislav Petronijević declared Bošković's grandfather a Serb from village Orahov Do. Ruđer's father, also Serb, Nikola decided to move from this Herzegovina's village to Dubrovnik. About Serbian origin, his contacts with guslars (Serb national instrument) and visits to Serbian orthodox monasteries, his father, Nikola, wrote in a book Relazione dei Monasterij della Provincia di Rassia. He also bought back stolen holy relics from Serbian orthodox monastery of Mileševa from Turks. 77.105.17.190 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Serbian sources

1.) There are no Serbs of Roman Catholic religion. These thesis are dangerous, since they promote Greater Serbian "all Croats are Serb Catholics" or, as a contrary argument (equally dangerous) Ustashi ideology of "Croatian Orthodox Church." There were few exceptions, but they are very rare, and it is unbelivable that Bošković family would declare itself as "Catholic Serbian."

2.) Ruđer's father was declared a Serb without any sources or evidences. By such metodology, whole of Dubrovnik was declared a Serbian town, Držić and Gundulić Serbian poets, Adriatic sea "Serbian sea" and so on. These thesis are dangerous.

3.) Nikola was a merchant who travelled throughout Balkans. Are his visits to Serbian monasteries and contacts with guslars evidence enough for his Serbian ethnicity? Maybe Marco Polo is Chinese because he visited China and wrote a book about his travels?

4.) Nikola didn't write a book "Relazione...", he only provided the author of that book with evidence since he visited those sites.

5.) Finally, even if his father was, by some miracle, a Serb (which is a thesis without firm foundation), that wouldn't make Ruđer a Serb since he was connected all his life with Dubrovnik and Western Europe. For example, Mozart's father was a German born in Augsburg, and Mozart spent much time travelling in Western Europe - but he is considered Austrian.

Therefore, there is no reason to give and explain Serbian claims in article, and we didn't see any sources or serious literature. Philosopher12 (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added some of this musing into Nikola Bošković and characterized it as such. Please feel free to bring forward other sources that explicitly disprove Šćepanović etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that Šćepanović says part of his conclusion relies on the evidence of "oral" histories? "Трагајући даље, Слободан Шћепановић је, на основу докумената из дубровачког архива, раније писаних дјела и сачуване усмене традиције, дошао до закључка да је Руђеров чукундједа, у ствари, Бошко Станишин Шћепановић из Роваца у Црној Гори**." How does that count as evidence? --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and write that. AFAICT the modern claim of notability of Ruđer's father is this issue, so it's relevant regardless of its veracity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==November 2012== The article meets all six WP:BCLASS requirements. Referencing is generally fine, but there are several uncited statements. The works section should be referenced too. The "Religious views" section looks a bit half-baked. It could certainly be very interesting, if it could be expanded further with his views on religion and the relation between faith and science. The "Competing claims for Bošković's nationality" is as least reasonably cited, but it sometimes appears as if it's trying too hard to prove a point. It could be condensed a bit (and perhaps worked into the Legacy section), with quotes moved to the Notes section. Bošković is indeed noted for his atomic theory, and the sources do reflect that, but unfortunately it only receives a passing mention in the text. GregorB (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)