Talk:Rudjer Josip Boscovich

Boscovich was considered to be Italian at the time - there was no mention of his Croatian origin up until 20th century. He worked in Italy, spoke Italian, lectured in Italian, died in Italy. He is of mixed origin, and Italians consider him their own. So do not erase this repeatedly, it is not only inaccurate but extremely rude! User:18.252.2.32

Would this be a fair compromise: to call him "Croatian-born"? That way it would be clear that it was only a reference to his birth, and not necessarily his ethnicity. Then you can add the facts that he worked in Italy, spoke Italian, lectured in Italian, and died in Italy, and everyone would be clear about the matter. :) By the way, my browser is now displaying the Croatian version of his name with "<caron>" in the middle, which isn't right at all...! -- Oliver Pereira 03:11 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

He was born in Ragusa, or Dubrovnik, which was independet city at the time. It would not be accurate, Croatia didnt exist at the time. Compromise would be to erase Italian-Croatian and leave just the later statements which detail his birth (this I tried but was reverted; it is also what has been done in current edition of Britannica, as you can easily check on the web!) User:18.252.2.32

Just a comment, but what the heck is "Bos<caron>koviæ"? A formatting error? --Dante Alighieri

---

My opinion. I know him just as Croat. I had never heard he was considered Italian. It does not matter that Croatia at that time didn't exist. Nationality has nothing to do with historical political or state development of one area. When I was in Dubrovnik, years ago, I saw his birth street. He is also considered in some places as naturalized French, English or Italian. He wrote mainly in Latin, as was custom those days. I can't confirm he lectured in Italian, but I know he wrote letters to his sister Anica and to his brothers Baro and Božo in his native Croatian. For sure he knew Italian because he had to. But it is also known that he appreciated brother's opinions more than opinions of leading European scientists of that period. I really do not want to be rude if I delete what is not accurate. I am not Croat but I respect all nationality. I can say the same thing with, for example, Herman Potočnik, who was considered Austrian, but he was in fact Slovene and Herman of Carinthia who was also considered as Croat, but he was also Slovene. I was born in former Yugoslavia, so I am not Yugoslav, but Slovene and so on. The same thing is with Josip Broz Tito. His father was Croat and his mother was Slovene, so Slovenes never considerd him as Slovene, because he was Croat. Dante I've changed "Bos<caron>koviæ" to unicode form "Boškovi&#263" and I hope it is all right now. I guess it is another thing if someone retract his nationality. I respect this man so you should too. I guess he was proud he came from Dubrovnik, so let it be in that way. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 23:54 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Probably the best thing is just to drop the claim from the opening sentence, as it is later said who were his parents. ---Johans

XJR, I agree that nationality has nothing to do with the state, but you cannot say someone is 'Croatian born' if Croatia didn't exist at the time (thats what it means). Saying that he is Croatian born is differet thing from saying that he was a Croat. But as you insist on this line, even the Croatian nationality of his father can be disputed. He is as much Croatian as Archimedes was Italian. The most accurate description, that would not offend anyone, would be to say that he was a Dalmatian. Dalmatians are distinct from Panonic Croatians, it was only in this century that they started to consider themselves Croatians - Dalmatia has distinct history from the rest of Croatia, and Croatians and Dalmatians despised each other in this century as any two other Balkan groups (and quarrel sometimes even today) - similary Montenegrins and Serbs, who were once considered to be the same nationality now are two considered to be two distinct nationalities - these things change. Dalmatia was long claimed by Italy, as you probably know, and has mixed population and a substantial Italian minority, which was much greater in the past. I have cousins who are from Dubrovnik and who are of mixed origin, and they have had problems during wars in the last century because of that. Italians fought on the side of partisans together with other people in Dalmatia in WWII, even before 1943, and Istria and Zadar only become part of Croatia (Yugoslavia at the time) after 1945. Cities on Adriatic coast at that time, like Venice and Ragusa, were all independent, akin of cities in ancient Greece, and had a lot of similarities - Italy didn't unite until the end of XIX century, as you probably know.

Also, I don't like your argument that mother's nationality does not count. Jews consider mother's nationality more important than father's. You are a Slovene and you know full well that a lot of your Slovene friends would be Bosnians by that logic (with some even not knowing it) - which they would probably consider to be a great insult, at least as far as my understanding of how Slovenes respect all nationality goes. Also, I don't know if you disown Tito now, but twenty years ago he was not considered a Croat, but a Croat-Slovene. All people in former Yugoslavia know stories of Joza's childhood in Zagorje, his Slovene mother and grandfather - little children learned all about it in schools, as a part of curriculum and it was part of his personality cult that he was of mixed origin, in accordance with the brotherhood and unity wich was promoted at the time. His Croatian language was far from flawless, he had a heavy accent and everyone was aware that he was half Slovene. User:18.252.2.32

As for Croats, their greatest tennis player, Wimbledon champion Goran Ivanisevic, is considered to be a Croat, despite the fact that his father is a Serb. His mother is Croatian, and that is enough, and Goran says sometimes that he is a Dalmatian because of his mixed origin, but more often just considers himself to be a Croat. His Croatian patriotism and nationalism is undisputed. User:18.252.2.32

Yes, very interesting, indeed. I agree with all what have you written. And I still think that we can't simply drop ones nationality. So I still vote for Bošković to be of Croatian origin. I didn't mean that someone is Croatian if he was born in a state of Croatia, but if he was born as Croat irrespective where he was born. According to your claim all Croats born before 1991 won't be Croats at all. We can't consider Dalmatians as national independent form. They are Croats if their parents are Croats and they are Italians if their parents are. I own Bošković famous book Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis (Theory of Natural Philosophy) published 1763 in Venice. And here Bošković is considered to be a Croat. But I guess we won't get far argueing in this way. I just say we have to find a nationality for every person here in Wikipedia. I have written my arguments and I really do not want to impose my point of view to anybody. I didn't say that mother's nationality does not count. If Bošković is to be Italian because of his mother's line than it is all right for me. I just wrote what I know of his origins and that I found mostly all around he is considered to be Croatian. So I leave a final decision to all of you. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 21:30 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Dante, your atitude is very interesting. Indeed, you know only those historical facts that suits you. Unfortunately, history is not science and it's not so dificult to hide some facts. If you claim that Croats and Dalmatians unified in 20th century, than you have to learn some history regarding age before Italian ocuppation of Eastern Adriatic cost. Don't allow that history split people - especially if it's not true. Greeting... User:193.1.159.133

I don't believe you're talking to Dante. *sigh* If only everyone would sign their comments... -- Oliver P. 17:06 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You're correct. It was not Dante. Dante just have some problems with unicodes, which were latter corrected. User User:193.1.159.133 you've changed a link from Serbo-Croatian language to Croatian language. Please, see talk page at related pages of these 'two' languages. Bošković's name is the same in both ones. I can't comprehend why are you all so concerned with nationalisms and not with nationalities. --XJamRastafire 14:18 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

He was a Serb-Italian. His father was Nikola Boskovic Pokrajcic from the village of Orahov Do in Eastern Hercegovina (originally from the family of the Pokrajcici). He was a trader who moved to the state of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and converted to Roman Catholicism in order to become a citizen of the Catholic statelet. He later married his Italian wife (her family originated from the Italian mainland). Nowhere, other than in nationalist Croat books is he ever mentionned as a Croat, in fact he considered himself a Ragusan citizen although his father was a Serb and wrote about Serbian history in Farlati's works. Igor 22:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

For the record, I couldn't find a single reliable document via Google that would explain Bošković's father's supposed Serb origin. A very small amount of pages mention the issue, and those that support it are either assertions or web forum rants, whereas there are a few that actually dispute it. The story seems rather hollow and even if it is true that his father was Serb, it still makes no sense to say that the name Ruđer Josip Bošković is "Serbian". --Shallot 21:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I further searched in order to find more information about this, using all sorts of transformations of his name and even typos in the search engines. After you weed out various nationalist tripe and start carefully reading between the lines to remove the vast amount of spin on the story, there does appear to be enough historical records to confirm that his father was indeed from the Dubrovnik hinterland (eastern Herzegovina), likely a Serb that converted to Catholicism.

Two web pages seem particularly worthy of pointing out:

• http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/147/t147-6.htm -- an academic from Belgrade points out how wrong it is to include Rudjer Boskovic in the book "Top 100 Serbs" merely because of genes
• http://www.astronomija.co.yu/razno/pisma/2003/stajerudjer.htm -- another academic from Belgrade pointing out how wrong it is to consider Rudjer a Croat merely because of location (unfortunately this one isn't in English)

http://www.arhimed.rs.ba/biography/boskovic/zoran.htm --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd just like to apologize for initially being so shortsighted. Issues surrounding the Dubrovnik Republic don't fit into the modern national(ist) schemes. (But then again, what does? *sigh*)

There does seem to be some confusion as to whether he was the sixth, seventh or the eighth child or son in the family of Nikola Bošković and Pavla Bettera. It would be nice if there wasn't, but it's not really important.

--Shallot 23:52, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would like to add some more words here about this great physicist. Nevertheless what in the end shall be proved what nationality was really his father Nikola (Croat or Serb) I guess we must not generalize things. Shallot - your first link does matter to me. Yes, in fact genes do really have much with nationality.

First of all, whoah, easy there with the ranting! Just as I thought my final comment was to clear up the whole mess...

--Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me being a ranter. I just higly respect Boscovich' scientific work - that is all! --[XJam]

Secondly, nationality is acquired by birth but also by naturalization.

--Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps --[XJam]

Thirdly, surely we have established by now that Boskovic was first and foremost a citizen of Dubrovnik, and that the rest is interpretation?

--Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

His family came to Dubrovnik from somewhere - we also now know this. --[XJam]

I wouldn't be so straightforward on that. Rudjer's immediate family seems to have been in Dubrovnik throughout his life, so the link to his father's roots outside of Dubrovnik seems to be fairly symbolic. --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Untrue he looked for his family roots and told his brother to find their family crest (which I have and will upload) somewhere in the hinterland (Hercegovina and Bosnia). Besides his father wrote a piece for Farlati and other Dalmatian historians treating with the subject of the Serb ('Rascian') monasteries from Kosovo to the Popovo Polje region of Hercegovina from whence his family originated. -- Igor 19:54, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Igor wrote a note that Boscovich's (I'll write here his English name - but I prefer his S/C name Bošković) principal language was Italian. See my notes about this above. I'll repeat here once again: He wrote to his sister and two brothers in (I'll say for now in Serbo-Croatian) and all his scientific works were written in Latin. I guess he just speak Italian with his mother and when he was living in Milan officially and so on. How can his principal language be Italian?

Well the official language of the Ragusan Republic was the Venetian dialect of Italian. Serbo-Croat (or rather the Eastern-Hercegovinian Serb dialect) was spoken by the common folk. -- Igor 19:54, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's terribly wrong to estimate that he spent most of the time using Italian. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But I guess it is. I think he mostly spoke Latin and S/C... (Najbolje je kazati, da je Boškovic govorio 'naš' jezik (It is best to say that Boscovich spoke 'our' language)). --[XJam]

that would not clarify anything -- Igor 19:54, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Given that he mostly worked in foreign countries, I don't think he used it much except when communicating with his siblings. Certainly Latin, English and French were each important in various stages of his life, other than Italian. --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Whether his father was really (I'll start to belive this in a near future) a Serb or a Croat Boscovich had to talk also with his father I guess.

His father died when he was 10, BTW. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, OK. If I think on my childhood, I was able to speak my native at that age perfectly. I've just learned some more grammar at schools afterwards. And also Boscovich was his son, and sons speak more frequently with fathers that with mothers - at least I think so - do not catch all my words. --[XJam]

Yeah, yeah, but he lived for 76 years, so those first 10 can't be much other than a fraction of his language-speaking life. :) --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So this is a paradox of his socialization! The second link of astrophysicist Aleksandar Tomić from Belgrade, born in Croatia, is also very much interesting. At least to me. You, Shallot also wrote in your revision history note that this is the good old Pan-Serbian propaganda machine again.

Do us all a favour and read what I said later, a few lines above these? There's still certainly a link to the good old pan-Serb propaganda machine, but I seem to have established that it is not exactly founded on thin air. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't believe you almost at all. (Perhaps you should also think about a term you've probably never heard - "the good old Pan-Croatian propaganda (infernal) machine"). Perhaps Igor is perfectly right and indeed Boscovich is a Serb! I have previously some edit wars with one user who claimed Boscovich was Italian (as it can be seen above). I do not want to argue anymore with others about Boscovich's nationality. I've read writting of Drago Dragović and a reply of Tomić. Firstly, Dragović quotes famous American physicist Leon Max Lederman that he wrote about Boscovich how he was a Serbo-Croat. Such a term exists nowhere. As a former citizen of former Yugoslavia I know just a term of Serbo-Croatian language. And then Tomić rectified Dragović's claim about Lederman's quote. Lederman in fact wrote in his original work and also in a translation that Boscovich was just a citizen of Dubrovnik. Someone put out several times a note that Boscovich's family originates from a village (I originally wrote "Orahovo" form eastern Herzegovina - but probably my source wasn't quite correct and Igor might be right that this village is "Orahov Do" - it lies some 100 km northwestern from Dubrovnik - and official border of Herzegovina is approx. some 100-200 km northern from there. But in fact I really do not know how far Herzegovina extends to hinterland).

Err, eastern Herzegovina is basically just beyond the hills above Dubrovnik. FWIW. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So if Orahov Do is really not a "mith", we should say it lies in the vicinity of Dubrovnik - this would be the correct geographical term I guess. And, for me it is important if we know for one such famous scientist from where his family comes. Einstein might came from some place in the Himalaya - and we should state that.

Are we not stating so already, without your change? I did not revert such a change after the last edit. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Somehow now I am a bit pissed off because I've believed almost all the time Boscovich was a Croat - and perhaps he was not at all. As Tomić wrote: Boscovich (in fact) never lived in Croatia! Dubrovnik (aka Ragusa at that time) was an independent republic. Tomić says it was in fact Italian with many (now I do not understand his term - "slovenskog" (which nation in fact does he mean) - if he means Slovene citizens he can't be completely right, because Slovenes lived at the Adriatic coast around Trieste and in what is now Croatian Istra). Supplement: Komnenović in his reply to Dragović explains who were "Slovini" -- he didn't mean Slovenes but (original term "Slovini" -- I do not know the English name!)

The intended word is Sloveni and means Slavs in Serbian, so, there's no confusion. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As I understand S/C language a term for Slavs is "Slaveni" and not "Sloveni". Tomić and Komnenović use a term "Slovini" and I am sure this is not a typo. They didn't mean Slavs. Slavs were already settled all over on Balkans at that time. --[XJam]

This is from the Italian 'Schiavoni' which was used to designate Slavs in general however in the Ragusan context it referes to Schiavonia/'Slavia' i.e. Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina which was Dubrovnik's major trading partner. I am not aware of any trading going on between Ragusa and Croatia? The Slavic language is sometimes referred to as such, sometimes as 'serviano', sometimes as Illyrian ('illirico') whereas sometimes both names are used such 'illirico overo serviano' (Illyrian or Serbian) when referring to Cyrillic letters used to communicate with the hinterland's Slavs as well as the Turks (I will scan a 15th century agreement between a Herzegovinian pasha/Turish sultan and the Dubrovnik Republic written in Serb Church Cyrillic). --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, "Slaveni" is the Croatian form and "Sloveni" is the Serbian form. Tomić said that in Bošković's time, people of Dubrovnik said "Slovini", as did Komnenović, and they both interpreted that to mean Slavs in the modern language (which is obvious) while Komnenović also added the good old pan-Serb spin: he stated "Slavs or Serbs". --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

BTW, Slovenes (Slovenians) are "Slovenci". --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just a reflex from Proto-Slavic, the form 'Slavjanski' was also used among the Serbs as well. --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

They were citizens of Dubrovnik, called themselves not Croats but so, and they were in fact Orthodox Serbs (--XJamRastafire 23:18, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC))

To state that all the Slavs in Dubrovnik were Orthodox Serbs by origin is a blatant generalization. To state that they were Orthodox (remained that is) is pretty much nonsense, although your sentence seems cut off so perhaps you didn't mean to say that. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not all but a very large proportion was, including Boskovic's family. --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But I did mean that. I just didn't say that |all| "Slovini" were Orthodox by religion. Many of them were. As Tomić wrote, Orthodox Church was also on the island Korčula. This is not my claim - but it is interesting.

Yes, migrations naturally, particularly during the time of the Turks, Serbs settled as far west as in some portions of Slovenia (around the Bela Krajin: Žumberak, Črnomelj, Novo Mesto)... --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting example of how one can spin things to match their beliefs. On the 2001 Census, there were 2,732 Orthodox believers in the whole Dubrovnik-Neretva county, and they didn't state their national Orthodox church. There were also 19 Serb Orthodox, 4 Greek Orthodox and 2 Macedonian Orthodox believers. All around 2.24%.

That was in 2001, completely irrelevant to history or rather the 15th and 16th centuries for example. --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Serb propagandists constantly tout the censuses of Bosnia from the start of the 20th century which show that there were more Serbs than Muslims there.

Not really the issue but the Orthodox outnumbered the Muslims in Bosnia before the beginning of the 20th century as well. Furthermore, not all Muslims at that time had a distinct sense of nationality, some considered themselves Serbs and some even Croats. It's amazing you missed that on those herceg-bosna, darko.hr pages you keep linking too. I beginning to wonder whether you even read that junk? :) --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do the math -- how many centuries would it take to reduce the supposedly significant number of Orthodox believers to their present numbers? This is just another one in the long line of stories carefully construed in order to pave way for armies the likes of Milosevic's. --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well let's see, there were 600,000 Orthodox faithful in 1991 and only 200 thousand in 2001... --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How should I know here south of the Alps that many Serbs (aka "Slovini") lived in Dubrovnik some hundred years ago. Can you tell me?

I don't submit to that flagrant misinterpretation how Serbs are also known as Slovini. (It's funny, really, the pan-Serb propagandists have the audacity to claim that "Srblje" and "Slovini" means Serbs in the modern sense. That's so pathetically opportunist. Of course, there's wacko Croats that think anything with the syllable "hr" or "khr" in ancient Persia belongs to them, but the difference is that nobody really takes these seriously.) --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If all Croatian historians are quite about this, nobody will know, right. In this way you can say that all Slovenes are in fact Croats, or that they are in fact Alpine Serbs - whatever you may wish. Or that all Russians are simply all Slovenes and so on. --[XJam]

If they are "quite" about this? I don't understand. I also don't quite see where your reductio ad nauseam is coming from. --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It was meant to be "quiet". --XJamRastafire 13:40, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Tomić also wrote that Italians do not consider Boscovich to be Italian - here many Wikipedians claim exactly this...! He ask himself: what was Boscovich - and he also gives an answer: Boscovich was a citizen of Europe. Dubrovnik is now in Croatia and Croats should be proud of him, but Serbs also have their right to be proud of since his father came from Serb etnic corpus. And Italians because his mother was Italian, and the French because he had a French citizenship, and Austrians because his book was written and published in Austria, and US citizens because there ramains almost the whole Boscovich's written legacy - and finally also citizens of Great Britain because his contemporaries who admired him mostly came from the British island. Tomić researches Boscovich's life and work for over 30 years. I think I do not have to say more. I previously vote for Boscovich nationality to be Croatian - but now I am not so sure any more. I just do believe his family lived in a Croatian manner. We should also learn ourselves how great was Boscovich work in physics at that time, because his ideas are still alive in a modern physics. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 22:52, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now you're getting the right idea. Rudjer Boskovic was as all the other citizens of all the other cities along the Adriatic coast, completely occidental in nature. Croatia is based upon these values even today, so Croat historians have some merit in claiming Boskovic. There's also many links to Serbs, so their historians also have some merit in claiming Boskovic. One thing that we shouldn't be doing is assigning a supposedly clearcut national character to him.

Pseudo-cultural spin. If you ask me, the Greek contributions to astronomy, physics and math are vital, that is why Greek letters are used throughout. Yet this has nothing to do with Boskovic's ethnic origins. --Igor 20:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A lot of the south Slavic population speaking the Serbo-Croatian dialects in today's Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia never seemed to have been particularly well divided on purely genetic grounds, and even though it's possible that Nikola Boskovic actually declared himself a Serb, his children's ethnicity and nationality was open to interpretation even back in the 18th century, let alone nowadays after two centuries of national upheavals. --Shallot 11:33, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Interesting. Religion also did its own job. To my knowledge still today when all former Yugoslav republics are states S/C language is all the same. Yes, we (now) foreigners know some differences about three main forms of this language (kaj, što, ča, ...) but we can not understand such a hate between these two (now three (if we also count Bosnians)) great Slavic nations. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 15:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's somewhat amusing that you should state that the language is all the same after the obvious confusion caused by differences just above :) The south Slavic nations that speak these dialects don't necessarily hate each other, it's just that over the years, among them developed many fools who try their best to impose their beliefs on others, how ever ludicrous they may be. With aggresion there usually comes defensiveness, and then we get to go back and forth about stuff that's not really debatable. Rather than wasting more energy on this kind of nonsense, I think we should stick to the definition that Rudjer Boskovic was from Dubrovnik, which is entirely uncontested given that he spent all of his diplomatic life working in the interest of the Dubrovnik Republic. --Shallot 09:45, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

May I ask why is Rudjer Boskovic still listed as Serbian?

Must be a mistake, should rean Serb-Italian. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is it because of his father's original religion?

No, just ethnic and linguistic background. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If my father is Swedish and I am born in United Kingdom, am I Swedish? I think not. I would speculate that, since ethnicity at that time was greatly determined by religion, since Rudjer Boskovic was Catholic, he was either Croatian or Italian.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was also Catholic, was he Italian or Croatian? I am guessing the latter according to you? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since Ragusa was relatively independent , Catholic and the local population's native language South-slavic, it seems reasonable to pick Croatian.

What warped logic, the Venetian Republic was also Catholic and independent, was it Croatian too? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The reasoning of both of you is speculative. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Could you provide references where it appears that Rudjer Boskovic's origins are Serbian? I've seen some deductions about his father's ethnicity on this page, but I wouldn't go as far as to declare him a Serbian.

Read the discussion page. Knock yourself out. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's not really a valid answer. All of the references I've seen so far are more or less conjecture. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If your great-great-great-grandfather is French, are you French? I think not. Furhtermore what are the sources for his father's ethnicity, I would be glad to call up some friends to look up the information back in Dubrovnik.

A great description would be: "Rudjer Boskovic was born in Dubrovnik, historically a city-state, nowadays a famous tourist-spot in Croatia.

Istanbul is also a famous tourist-spot today in Turkey but that has no place in Byzantine or Roman history for example. You can't project the present into the past. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And yet that's exactly what you are doing when you resolutely claim he's a Serb, projecting the present into the past. This is getting circular. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

His father, Nikola Boskovic Pokrajcic, was most likely a Serb, coming from an Orthodox village of Orahov Do, in Eastern Herzegovina, nowadays a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and his mother..." and so forth and so forth. Thus you let the reader pick the "exact" nationality.

Claiming that Dubrovnik people were Serbian is ridiculous, since the prime ethnical identification of Serbian people at the time was the Orthodox Church..

Wrong, the Ragusan Republic mentions the Slavic language and calls it 'serviano' despite being Catholic. Besides, Dubrovnik's law only accorded citizenship to Catholics, so all of the immigrants had to convert one way or another if they happened to be Jewish, Protestant or say Orthodox. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd like a reference and context to this serviano statement. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since the local Dubrovnik population was Roman-Catholic (minus those few dozen of other religious orientations) , they were what are known today as Croatians.

You have to ask what was the characteristic that fundamentally identified the today's ethnicities back in time. It was a membership in an geopolitical and religious circle. Serbs were much more influenced by the policies of Byzantine, Ottomans and the East in general and they belonged to the Orthodox church.

The Kingdom of Serbia was one of the Ragusan Republic's biggest trading partner. In the 14th century it sold to Dubrovnik the isthmus of Peljesac (Rat), Ston, Konavli and 95% of the territory of the Ragusan Republic save for the town of Dubrovnik/Ragusa itself. The Serbs were also in contact with the Venetian Republic and its traders etc. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Croats were greatly influenced by Italy, Austria and the Central/West Europe, and they belonged to the Catholic church.

Yes, yes, I know, but what does that have to do with anything? Most of the innovations in astronomy came from the Greeks and later Arabs. Does that make one a Greek or an Arab should astronomy become a subject of interest of his? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ergo, Dubrovnik is and was Croatian. Ergo Rudjer Boskovic lived with Croatian people. He himself might have considered himself either Slavic or Italian, as terms Serbian and Croatian were not used very often back in those times. Yakov 20:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)yakov

OK, to end this discussion, let me quote a Serbian intellectual Gojko Nikolis (source: ) [Boskovic's well known biographical information listed...] On the basis on these facts, one must ask oneself: wherein lie R. Boskovic's Serbian roots? The times he lived and worked in (the time of the Turkish rule, when Boskovic had no interest in or opportunities to establish links with his Serbian heritage represented by a backward Serbia and Montenegro) do not speak in favor of the Serbian element.

Oh brother, what mighty arguments! Now you subjectively decide who is backward and who is unworthy of Boskovic? How worthy can the Croats be if they did not even have an independent state between 1102 and 1918? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How exactly do you infer that statehood has anything to do with this notion of backwardness? But I guess we could have expected that, per the Greater Serbian concept... --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The environment and culture in which he grew up and acquired his education and to which he belonged (the Jesuit Order, affiliation to the Western world's science and civilization) do not speak in favor of his Serbian feelings. It must be admitted however, that there is one factor which proves Boskovic's Serbian roots, it is the only one, and as such it is not very convincing. Boskovic's father Nikola Boskovic was a Serb from Herzegovina. He lived in Dubrovnik. He was a rich merchant who converted to Catholicism when he married an Italian. It turns out that Boskovic is a Serb only genetically. Can genetic roots be considered a decisive factor in determining the national orientation and essence of a man, while at the same time disregarding the much stronger sociological, cultural and other nongenetic aspects?

Might I add that this was an article from newspapers that was run by Milosevic's War Propaganda machinery. Milosevic is behind bars in the International Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, but his cronies are still around, defacing Croatian heritage by abusing the open-minded policy of sites such as Wikipedia. Yakov 20:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)yakov

Okay, researched some more, this whole BS about a Small serbian village is actually inaccurate. Orahov Dol/Orahov Do (varies) belongs in "Imotska krajina"

No it does not. There is no Orahov Do in Imotska Krajina. Orahov Do is in Popovo Polje (Orthodox priest's field) south of Trebinje. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

region nowadays, and is now in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the lower Herzegovina region, and has always been ethnically and culturally Croatian.

Always as in 1941-5? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Orthodox and even Serbian roots of Rudjer Boskovic are pure hearsay based on the most-stretched speculations for which there is virtually no evidence. To all the visitors of Wikipedia: you have just witnessed another attempt of cultural assimilation by the rabid Greater-Serbian fanatics who will try to prove to you that anyone and everyone are, in fact, Serbian, they just don't know it yet. Orahov Dol was at the time at the borders of Dubrovnik republic, a small ethnically Croatian village and the only reason we are even speculating that his father might be from there is because that is the tale in that village.

According to the Council of Europe, a source _much more reliable_ than some Serbian propaganda magazine, Orahov Dol, the village of Rudjer's father, was ethnically cleansed of Croatians in the recent agression on Croatia. For the visitors without much information on this, Serbian/Montenegran military destroyed a humungous amount of cultural heritage in Dubrovnik and the region in their recent aggression on the area in 1991/1992. The next step is to send cronies such as Igor try to describe to the rest how this village and the whole region in fact, were always Serbian and so forth and so forth.

Oh dear Lord! What are you saying, that the war's aim was to shaft your efforts to appropriate Boskovic on Wikipedia? -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sources: (You can translate this one through Google, gives an extensive account of Boskovic's history) http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/MATHPHYS/veselic/rudjer/

(Mentions the ethnic cleansing that went in Orahov Dol and the rest of Dubrovnik area) http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc93/EDOC6999.htm

The above text was silently removed by User:Igor. I've restored it; were this an article, a removal could have been warranted, but this is a discussion page so removing text without an explanation is censorship. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(Talks about Ivo Padovan, the founder of Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, also from Orahov Dol) http://www.acta-clinica.kbsm.hr/Acta2002/ ACTA2002_2/09NEWS~1.PDF

(Home page of the Rudjer Boskovic foundation in the lower Hercegovina region, you can see for yourself how Catholic, and Croatian, the whole area is. You can even see the pictures of Rudjer Boskovic's house) http://www.rb-donjahercegovina.ba/ Yakov 20:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)yakov

I can see everything save for the arguments that allow you to label it as Croat. You should better take a look at what Emperor /Constantine_VII writes in his De_Administrando_Imperio about the migrations of the Serbs and Croats to the Balkans. Even Croat historians such as Franjo Racki, Klaic or Ferdo Sisic do not negate the fact that the Serbs settled south of the Cetina rivers leaving all of Hercegovina as Serb populated territory. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not exactly sure how Igor has the nerve to call Yakov's edits vandalism when they're each based on conjecture.

And yet not so long ago you agreed that your claims about Boskovic's alleged Croatdom stood on weak ground. My, my, how easily do we change our minds. -- Igor 09:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is the Nth time that you are blithely trolling. Let me spell it out for you: there's a significant difference between kindly not removing a set of conjecture while it's being discussed, and being in complete agreement with it. --Shallot 18:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I read the unattributed link and it seems to me that it's no more worthy (and at one point even self-conflicting) than other sources... --Shallot 11:08, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Exactly why I am restoring now. Yakov 19:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)yakov

---

I have added a few linx & deleted nonsense about Serbian/Italian whatever nonsense. First- there is no positive corroboration that Bošković's paternal ancestry has anything to do with Serbs (or Croatian converts who "shifted" their allegiances to Serbian Orthodoxy due to numerous factors & were especially numerous in post 1463. era period of Ottoman conquest when Serbian Orthodoxy was "fondled" by Turksih authorities). Second-it's of no importance even if it were true: Zola was a French although his father was Italian, or St.Francis Italian although his father was French. Not even to speak of "mixed" ancestries of Pushkin, Lenin, P.A.M.Dirac, Cezanne, Valery, ...Completely insignificant.

Mir Harven

you are all very funny..in the times boskovic lived there was no croatia and dubrovnik didnt belong to croatia :) before the formation of yugoslavia dubrovnik always either existed as an independant state or belonging to italy..so lets say we forget about his father (if he was a serb,you also forget that serbs lived in the regions around dalmatia and krajina,and you forget that modern dalmatians,real ones,dont consider themselves croatians because they are mainly of italian origin or mixed origin) he was still a citizen of dubrovnik.

One more thing..I dont quite understand the argument that in those days ethnicity was based on religion..sorry,but thats total nonsense..ethnicity was based on the fathers ethnicity and the last name went after the father,that were the basis of all patriarchatic sociaties and most were patriarchatic (it was nowdays liberal europe).. as for religion,some serbs were catholics..as for moslems as somebody mentioned,of course they didnt have a strong national feeling,because they were serbs or croats of muslim religion..the new made up nationality was given to them by tito in the attempt to create even a bigger hate between nations in former yugoslavia.. but as for boskovic..it was rather natural that he spoke italian..finns in finland spoke swedish because that was the official language and not finnish..so the same situation for dubrovnik..before the 20.century dubrovik was NOT a part of croatia because croatia didnt exist before 1918. as i said already,somebody should research a bit more about dalmatians and regions around dubrovnik and will find out that most of those people are not really croatians,but mostly belonging to the italian national minority or mixed.

"According to the Council of Europe, a source _much more reliable_ than some Serbian propaganda magazine, Orahov Dol, the village of Rudjer's father, was ethnically cleansed of Croatians in the recent agression on Croatia. For the visitors without much information on this, Serbian/Montenegran military destroyed a humungous amount of cultural heritage in Dubrovnik and the region in their recent aggression on the area in 1991/1992. The next step is to send cronies such as Igor try to describe to the rest how this village and the whole region in fact, were always Serbian and so forth and so forth. "

one last posting from me..somebody before this mentioned milosevic..well,people,i dont know if youre quite capable for such a big action,but try to remember that there was a time BEFORE 1990 and that the world didnt start in the 1990'. for example,do you remember that before milosevic there was a man whom i assume croats consider a big hero and was named ante pavelic.now,according to the US holocaust museum,yad vashem memorial center and some other sources (and not serbian nationalistic ones:) he killed "only" about 600 000 or so people.. of that number about half a million were serbs..maybe i should post the nice way he used to kill children?the rest were jews and gypsies. so you are claiming that serbs cleaned out the village Orahov Dol from Croatians in 1991/92..lets assume one thing..what if,only what if,pavelic before that cleaned out the village from Serbs and only then (after 1945) croats moved there?after all,rudjer was born 200 years before that,so how do we know who REALLY lived in that village?