![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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_
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.*
I pictured the page in the book, anyone wishing to see it, i can upload it. Philosopher12 ( talk) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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:
JKeck ( talk) 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
[ [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)
Why does it matter that there are sources older than 1922 that say Bošković was a Serb? Will it change something
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.
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)
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)
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)
Citation needed for Ruđer Bošković`s name in other languages? Is this for real? Adrian ( talk) 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
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
2 Slobodan Šćepanović "O porijeklu porodice i korijenima predaka Ruđera Boškovića". Istorijski zapisi 3/1995. Podgorica, 1995.
3 Zoran Pejašinović "Ruđer Bošković - Framework for scientific biography" http://www.arhimed.rs.ba/lica/biography/boskovic/zoran.htm
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.
5 Giorgio Inglese, Alberto Asor Rosa, Luigi Trenti, Paolo Procaccioli: "Letteratura italiana: dizionario bio- bibliografico e indici. Gli autori". Torino: Einaudi, 1990.
6 L'Istituto dell'Enciclopedia italiana: L'Enciclopedia Italiana. BOSCOVICH (Bošković), Ruggero Giuseppe (Ruđer Josip)[1]
-- 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?
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?
Also, you can ask why the Croatian government had stop to printing banknote with the portrait of Ruđer Bošković?!
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)
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. [1] [2] [3] 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. [4] 77.105.17.190 ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)