Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich

Lead, language etc.

@OyMosby: Would you care to explain and gather consensus for your last edit? I claim that Serbo-Croatian is indeed neutral (which has been noted and commented on page for canvassing only on hr.wikipedia). If you do not agree we could go with Shtokavian. Either Serbian or Croatian is not correct, in my book. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's indicative that one of your first contribs under this sockpupet was on this article. NPOV doesn't mean Nazi Point of View. Now you are trying to delete every menition of Croatia in this article, in language and location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.173.108 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Given that his ethnicity is hard to 100% rule as Serbian or Croatian (or even Italian), perhaps for now Shtokavian would suffice? Given we known his name is South Slavic. I am not sure what you mean by it being mentioned on a page for canvassing? Is this why you believe I was trying to canvass? I was not aware of hr wiki page. Not sure what other editors feel about it. @GregorB: what say you? Also to the IP above me, adhere to Wikipedia guidelines about personal attacks. You can face ban for such actions. If you have input for the article state your case. Let’s be civil. OyMosby (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about - [1] Okay? As I previously said, I am for Serbo-Croatian Shtokavian. Both would be correct. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That’s not me though. Nor do I frequent HR Wikipedia. Okay? And like I said, Shtokavian seems like a good option for now. So we agree. OyMosby (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be funny if it weren't sad. I am talking about Croatian Wikipedia of course. Nice to know that, even though I am permanently banned on Croatian Wikipedia. But I would rather burn here than to "enjoy" the Gothic Valhalla of what is the Croatian Wikipedia. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Shtokavian??? What?? Why is this even an issue? Every free thinking person would dismiss any mention of SANU - Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts or HAZU for that matter, they are not quite same, but you know what I mean. We live in the 21st century, who on Earth is going to know what in hell is Shtokavian if you put it instead of Croatian? --Tuvixer (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting only Croatian or Serbian is POV pushing and incorrect. We could have: 1) Serbo-Croatian 2) Shtokavian 3) Serbian and Croatian or Croatian and Serbian. I do not see a problem with Shtokavian, it's per facts. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What facts? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that most citizens of Ragusa spoke Eastern Herzegovinian dialect of the Shtokavian. Correct? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And we now live in the 18th century? :) And Shtokavian is a language? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not, but it has been used in the same way as myself and another editor suggested by the ICTY. Ragusans usually called their language Slovinski or naški and that can not be freely interpreted. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

ICTY? Maybe you made a grammatical error in that sentence so I don't understand what you were saying, but that is not even important. This whole discussion could be avoided if the article is titled in Croatian "Ruđer Josip Bošković" and not in English(?) "Roger Joseph Boscovich". Can that be done? Now I see something, if Bošković said: "Eviva Haddick e i nostri Croati!" and "there are my brave Croats", is there any need for further discussion? It would be much easier to just remove all the blood cells counting and come up with a category/frame/phrase or some name that encompasses all South Slavic people that speak the same language, and "Of the past let us make a clean slate, enslaved masses, stand up, stand up.", but unfortunately it is not so and it seems we have to live with that. Also, that would probably be the most controversial stance or at least the most contested one. But we have to reap what we sow, or in this/our case, what our ancestors sow. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

1) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ---> ICTY 2) We could have his name in Serbo-Croatian, but that change needs community approval (on the TP). 3) "There are my brave Croats" (if the source is correct), does not mean that Bošković is a Croat but that he feels a connection (South Slavic brotherhood and what not) with that group. That isolated statement does not mean that much. 4) I shall support the renaming. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Yes ICTY, but there the language was BHS/BCS, not Shtokavian, so I am missing something or you have missed the whole football. 2) So how can we seek community approval? 3) It much more implies an affiliation or a sense of belonging. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Has Ruđer Bošković ever said "...my Serbs..." or something like that? --Tuvixer (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources have already been presented by other fellow editors, if that is what you are looking for:

• Annotated Readings in the History of Statistics by H.A. David and A.W.F. Edwards, at page 52 says: "...the Serbian scientist Roger Boscovich (1711–1787) put forward a method..."
• Scottish Philosophy and British Physics, 1740-1870 by Richard S. Olson, says: "Among these group was the Serbian Jesuit Roger Joseph Boscovich, whose works seem particularly important..."
• Science Deified & Science Defied by Richard Olson, page 133, says: "...in the works of Serbian Jesuit, Roger Joseph Boscovich, these new ideas were soon widely adopted among British Newtonians."
• Dugald Stewart: Selected Philosophical Writings by Emanuele Levi Mortera, says: "Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711–1787) Serbian Jesuit. He was matnematician, natural philosopher and astronomer."
• The how and the why: An Essay on the Origins and Development of Physical Theory by David Park, page 200 says: "In 1758 the Serbian Jesuit Roger Boscovich published a Theory of Natural Philosophy Rduced to a Single Law of Natural Forces (1922) that did..."
• Critical Mass by Philip Ball, at page 41 says: "In 1763 a Serbian Jesuit named Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711–87) identified the ultimate implication of this mechanical atomic theory."
• The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-century Philosophy, Volume 2 by Knud Haakonssen, at page 1153 says: "Boscovich, Roger Joseph b. Dubrovnik, 1711; d. Milan, 1787, Serbian-Italian Jesuit and scientific polymath, professor of mathematics and astronomer in Italy,..."
• The Infinite Tortoise: The Curious Thought Experiments of History's Great Thinkers by Joel Levy, says: "The eighteenth-century Serbian scientist Roger Joseph Boscovich imagined an entity similar to..."
• A Theory of Natural Philosophy: With a Short Life of Boscovich by Branislav Petroniević, says: "On his father's side, the family of Boscovich is of purely Serbian origin, his grandfather, Bosko, having been an orthodox ..."
• New Scientist edition from 6 March 1958, says: "Born on 18 May, 1711, the son of a Serbian trader, in Dubrovnik, the then independent state of Ragusa..."
• Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education. Part III, Natural sciences, Volume 31 by Fukuoka Kyoiku Daigaku, 1981, page 49 says: "Rudjer Boskovic (1711-1787) was a Serbian Jesuit1'. His name is usually written in English as Roger Boscovich."
• Development of concepts of physics: from the rationalization of mechanics to the first theory of atomic structure by Arnold B. Arons, at page 709 says: "In 1758 the Serbian scientist Roger Boscovich suggested a model in which matter was to be viewed as composed of indivisible point centers of force."
• Dugald Stewart: Selected Philosophical Writings by Dugald Stewart, at page 20 says: "Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711-1787), Serbian Jesuit. He was mathematician, natural philosopher and astronomer."
• The Publishers' Trade List Annual, Volume 2 by R.R. Bowker Company, 1959, at page 63 says: "BOSCOVICH, ROGER JOSEPH. Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis. A molecular theory of matter as presented by the famous Serbian mathematician and physicist of the early eighteenth century."
• The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Society: A-D by Rudi Volti, at page 82 says: "The most sophisticated 18th-century theory of this kind was presented around 1747 in the Theory of Natural Philosophy of the Serbian Jesuit Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711-1787), although it was equally important for Immanuel Kant ..."

This one is different with a interesting approach:

• Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, & Culture, Volume 1 by H. James Birx, at page 105 says: "Though his father was of purely Serbian lineage and his mother of Slavonic-Italian origins, Boscovich always insisted he was a Dalmatian nationalist." Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I will ask again, has Ruđer Bošković ever said "...my Serbs..." or something like that? I am not ignoring the sources you provided, I acknowledge them. Please, be so kind and answer my question. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum 2) Renaming proposal should be started on the TP and a number of editors (Wiki projects) should be notified. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Something just came to my mind, what we did not discuss before. What kind of connection did Ruđer Bošković have with Serbia? --Tuvixer (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko changed the language in lead to Serbo-Croatian? without consensus with other editors. Please revert it back ti Croatian and warn disruptive editor for pushing Serbian fringe theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.134.159 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko, please do not exploit the coronavirus outbreak and the 2020 Zagreb earthquake to push your own agenda, find at least some humanity and decency and do not engage in malicious edits. The discussion is still ongoing. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

1) Nothing new was presented in the discussion. 2) Croatian language in the lead was not "stable" but pushed by 1 editor. Only that is disruptive, and calling the current version "stable" is incorrect and even manipulative. 3) There was 1 month without further comments and that is not "ongoing", by very definition. 3.1) IP comments should make sense and give arguments, while posting proper request, otherwise - they are irrelevant. 4) As for the last question posted on February 25, it makes very little sense as Serbs live and speak Serbian in tens of countries outside of Serbia. Another trivia is that the oldest astronomical society bears the name of RB, and it is based in Belgrade, of course. 5) I do not see any arguments why Serbo-Croatian is not a good fit for the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the last comment by user Tuvixier; quite repulsive notion, as virus is present in every Balkan country in large numbers. I suggest that you apologise or I shall have to report you, which is not my goal. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This kind of discourse is disturbing. A huge disaster hit Croatia yesterday, a large earthquake hit Zagreb on 22 March 2020. Of all days you have decided that today you would push your agenda. It is disturbing, after everything the least thing anyone needs in this multiple crisis is a nationalistic agenda be it from user Sadko or from some Croatian nationalist. Please have some humanity and stop this. User Sadko in article about Nikola Tesla has a problem with Serbo-Croatian and in this article about Bošković user Sadko does not have a problem with Serbo-Croatian. How does user Sadko explain this. Please, user Sadko, this is not the time for that kind of behavior and that kind of malicious edits. Please stop this. Exploiting this kind of disasters is wrong. Why should I apologize? Haven't you just tried, the day after a large earthquake hit the Croatian capital city Zagreb, to push, under the radar, this change while there is an ongoing discussion. You know that I have no problem for apologizing, if someone feels offended by my remarks. If you feel offended, I am very sorry, it was not my intention to offend you, all I did was that I stated the relevant facts. For the sake of our shared humanity, solidarity and to end this petty dispute I will revert myself. I will do this as a gesture of hope that in the future, when we get over this huge global disaster, we all can stop with this petty squabbles and that we all can start to live our lives understanding that it is not important if someone is or was a Serb or Serbo-Croatian or Croatian, and realizing that we all are humans, same but different, who share this small third rock from the Sun and that only together and not separated we can make the world and life on this Earth as decent as possible. After and during this pandemic we all will change, I hope for the better. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of cherry picking sources. I can provide as many sources that refer to Tesla as a Croatian scientist ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]...). Tzowu (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. You have not explained yourself. I'm sure you can, go take it to the TP, by all means. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of sources can be found for literally anything, and some of these sources on the talk page are from same authors, or are more than 50 years old. As I said, it's WP:CHERRYPICKING. Tzowu (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) After removing Croatian language in lead and pushing "Serbo-Croatian" construct (unlike in Nikola Tesla article) he completely removed the part of text explaining obscure Serbian theory on Boscovich nationality and placed some outdated (and redundant) sources claiming that he's as Serb. Corona crisis is showing to be a realy fruitful period for promoting ideas of Greater Serbia and serbs all and everywhere. Also he continues to edit or delete parts of talk made by other contributor which are not supporting his ideas. Same actions are on his user page, where he deletes notifcations for edir wars and disruptive editing made by admins and other contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.161.200 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.232.22 (talk)

Actually, Croatian historical revisionism and attempts in Wikipedia to cover-up the biggest genocide of Balkan (ww2 in Croatia), are noticed.

Croats are simply stealing history from their neighbors. 178.237.222.121 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Serbian paternal origin

A number of sources claim that Boscovich is a Serbian scientist and of Serbian paternal origin. I haven't checked all the sources but most of the sources talking about "Serbian scientist" not about "Serbian paternal origin". Sources which talk about "Serbian paternal origin" should be next to this claim. Mikola22 (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I want the Serbian paternal ancestry section removed

For about 200 years, Roger Boscovich's ancestry was not called into question - that's because there is no evidence his father was an ethnic Serb. The first time this claim was made was in 1910, by Branislav Petrinojevic. A likely reason this claim was made - that Roger was "as much Serb as he was Croat" - was that Croats claimed this about Nikola Tesla. In other words, it was just a reactionary claim and not based on any actual evidence. This claim was reprinted in English-language sources, who didn't confirm the validity of the claim, so it was repeated several times. The fact that something was falsely written and then repeated doesn't make it true, so it should be removed. There are no first-hand sources that suggest his father was an ethnic Serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E574:D34:399C:4E84:2DA7:E33C (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Boskovic is Serbian parental line. Not Croatian. There are hardly few ethnic Croats in Dubrovnik, until second half of XIX century. Later all Serbs Catholics were assimilated to Croats. 178.237.222.121 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Its not enough to claim this without evidence. You have not addressed the previous statements namely that this claim doesn't appear literally anywhere until the early 20th century. As for the hardly few Croats in Dubrovnik pre 19th century claim, it's pure Serbian nationalistic fantasy. The Dubrovnik state archives are entirely intact and date back 500+ years and so your statement of fact is infact a pure fabrication of history. It would be shameful if not so lazy. 49.196.58.254 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings from Dubrovnik! Change the nationality, dismiss propaganda!

I‘ve said it in on the issue with Ivan Gundulić as well. How does someone with such a disruptive history towards a nation gets the ability to edit such articles? Croatian is the only right label, with mentioning his life in Italy. The history of Serbian claims on Dubrovnik is long and starts with the Serbo-Catholic movement in the 1830s and was extinguished quickly, due to the Serbian Orthodox church being against it with the inofficial rule „A Serb must be an Orthodox“.

Boskovich‘s paternal side comes from Orahov Do, a village in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Looking at the ethnical structure shows that only Croats live there and that even before the Yugoslav war. Logically speaking, Dubrovnik is today a city with the majority of the population being catholic Croats and proud of their cities contributions to the Croatian history.

The audacity of Serbian historians and some people here to claim him as a Serb or even Serbo-Croatian is promoting the idea of a Greater Serbia. Why isn‘t Tesla stated as a Serbo-Croatian then? The Serbian appreciation of Dubrovnik was showed in the massive bombardments in the 1990ties.

What would Boskovich, Gundulic and many other important figures say to the pictures of their destroyed and once proud city? That they are Serbs or Yugoslavs? It‘s more than double standards, that those people, who mercilessly attacked and completely destroyed over a third of the UNESCO protected old town, are claiming them to be proud Serbian or (the smarter ones say) Serbo-Croatian figures.

I as someone from Dubrovnik myself, demand justice to his Croatian nationality. If even Boskovic himself saying in a letter to his brother quote “Eviva Haddick e i nostri Croati!” isn’t evidence enough, well then I don’t even know what it should be!? We are tremendously proud of our Croatian son and want the truth to be shown. MarburgAnDerDrau (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Croatian historical revisionism and Croatian nation foundation claim: "All Balkan Catholics who speak serbo-croatian language, are Croats".

Croats are nation composed in second half of XIX century, from all Balkan Catholics, which explains so many dialects spoken by today's modern Croats. 178.237.222.121 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact you believe that due to differing dialects Croats are a "invented" people from the 19th century tell me you are an advocate of the teachings of Karađić. With all due respect the man came to a conclusion without having all the facts and was heavily motivated by the concept of a Greater Serbia. He was deeply biased and an ardent supremacist. Not great character traits for a historian. In Croatia Ante Starčević had the same type of character traits, in picking and choosing facts that fit his world view. Both are very flawed characters. Even if some of their work is useful it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Your postulating if Croatians spoke a South Slavic dialect similar to the Serbs then by extension they must all be Serbs? Even worse the claim that the Croatians were a made up people, let me guess by the Austrians to weaken the interests of the Serbs? It's a very old Serbian nationalistic claim, one which is abhorrent because it's been used by Serbians to justify ethnic cleansing in the past.

These fairy tales are dangerous when propagated by nationalistic tyrants because they lead to a victimhood mentality. One which then sets out to right the wrongs that never existed. (This predates the Ustaše which themselves used similar theories this time against the Serbs themselves) That's the crux of your entire argument. Its so simplistic and narrow minded as to be embarrassing.

Croats have several dialects because we have been ruled over by different kingdoms and their cultures and languages influenced Croatian people within the borders of these kingdoms.

Croatia is made up of 5 regions, Dalmatia, Istria, Dubrovnik and Slavonia and Croatia major. In their time they all operated almost like individual nations within a kingdom So for example Dalmatia, Istria and Dubrovnik were all influenced by the Venetians/Latin and to a lesser extent Greek and Turkish cultures and languages (Hence the Chakavian dialect).

Mine is a very simplistic overview however it sets a path for you to discover more if you so choose to. It's readily available information. Here's your first link.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/South_Slavic_languages#Southwest_Slavic_languages

I am a Dalmatian Croat and I'm just tired of Nationalists from Serbia and Croatia for that matter playing with history for their desire for their idiology to fit within a historical context, to be neat and tidy, black and white. The problem is it's not neat and tidy, it's complex and rich and ultimately far more interesting.

Read more, turn off the stereotype filter in your mind and you might just be amazed with what you'll discover. Or just do as the Balkans tend to do and wall yourself in your safe space with cherry picked facts, skirting around the bigger picture but never quite seeing the whole thing. 49.196.58.254 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Why is there an entire section about nationality when a guy wrote himself what is his nationality?

Boscovich himself was proud of his Dalmatian identity. When d'Alembert in his Opuscule mathématiques... called him "an Italian mathematician", he shoot back that he was "a Dalmatian from Dubrovnik, and not an Italian".

Which would make him Croatian

Ayyven (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Remove nationality section and write it in the first paragraph: Roger Joseph Boscovich[a] SJ (18 May 1711 – 13 February 1787) was a Croatian physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, theologian, Jesuit priest, and a polymath from the Republic of Ragusa.

source: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/boscovich.htm

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

In the section "Boscovich's Demon" a reference is missing or has been removed. Please add the following reference to the scholarly article demonstrating the claims in this section:

Kožnjak Boris, "Who let the demon out? Laplace and Boscovich on determinism", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 51 (2015) 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.03.002 31.217.6.187 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added ResearchGate article since the website was not given Interesting Geek (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

Change everything it is all bad

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)