Talk:House of Boshko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Croatia Portal House of Boshko is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Serbia Portal House of Boshko is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Corrections

I made some corrections here:

1. "House of Bošković" which Ruđer Bošković belonged to died out in his generation because none of his brothers had any male offspring
2. They were never Dubrovnik noblemen (just aspiring commoners apparently using the alleged Pokrajčić ancestry to bolster the claim to nobility which was never granted).
3. Pokrajčićs were officers of the Bosnian king, thus Bosnian nobility
4. Story of the Nikola Bošković's conversion to orthodoxy is apparently a product of a 1990's Serbian inference that he "must have been an Orthodox". It's not even mentioned in the more serious Serb propaganda pieces.
5. Baro Bettera, Paula's father wasn't an Italian nobleman, but a Dubrovnik commoner (although very wealthy). He was also a minor Croatian poet (but significant enough to make it into "Lexicon of Croatian Writers", Zagreb 2000).

In short, try to avoid overt nationalistic propaganda when finding sources, not only because it's biased but also because of its sloppy research. --Elephantus 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pokrajcics were the lesser gentry that came to Orahov Do from Serbia. They weren't Bosnian nobility.

Instead of tjust pointing out places that you don't like; state your own sources. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all actually in this 'lovely' piece of work: "Srpstvo Dubrovnika", if you can read through the incessant "Serbian this, Serbian that" claims. --Elephantus 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And of course, if the "house of Boshko" wasn't a noble family, then it could have hardly had a coat of arms. I removed it accordingly. --Elephantus 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that. Yes, that work is somewhat biased. But don't be to harsh on it as it mentions Greater Serbia quitte a lot; as although is propaganda, does not offend the Croatian mileu. I meant percisely about the picture and the source that you removed. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

There is an edit war going on at this article. That is unnacceptable. It is disruptive to Wikipedia. You all must discuss the prblems on the talk page. If there is another revert I'm going to have to protect the article to force you to discuss the changes here. I don't want to, but it seems to only way to stop disruption to this article.--Commander Keane 10:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski (and maybe User:HolyRomanEmperor too) are trying to push an extremist Serbian agenda. I've tried to remove the obvious errors caused by User:HolyRomanEmperor copying this article almost verbatim from a propaganda source whose author did some sloppy research, but to no avail. From my experience with User:Nikola Smolenski and to a lesser extent with User:HolyRomanEmperor, they insist on burying Wikipedia articles on many Balkan topics with Serbian propaganda, whitewashing recent Serbian history, falsifying more distant history with dubious Serbian claims etc. This article is a part of that. --Elephantus 12:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Elephantus, helped by Zmaj is revert warring on a number of articles. On Ivan Gundulić, he reverts to a version which states that he was "Croatian poet" (the other version states that he was "poet from the Republic of Dubrovnik, considered by origin to be both Serbian and Croatian") despite several references of his Serbian origin being given in Talk and a quick poll showing that four users support inclusion of the fact. On Rudjer Boscovich he is replacing carefully-crafted and referenced paragraph which details various claims about Boskovic's ethnic origin with a statement saying that "In the early 1990's extreme Serbian nationalists claimed he was of Serbian origin", without any reference. He is doing the same here: removing references used to write the article even though he agrees with most of it, removing coat of arns because "if the "house of Boshko" wasn't a noble family, then it could have hardly had a coat of arms" (primary research), removing referenced information of Nikola's conversion to Catholicism claiming that it is product of Serbian propagannda without any reference. Nikola 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are also revert warring on most of the articles that you come accross so a bit of hypocracy self-check would not hurt you. --Dado 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

By some strange coincidence, it happens that you are revert warring on those same articles too. Nikola 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

May I add something to my defense? I have started this article and went on to explain all three theories of the Boshovich's origin. Claiming that the sources are nationalist is entirely incorrect; as I already personally explained. How can the "Istorija Astronomije kod Srba II" be nationalist. Next to that, we've got a strange removal of the Coat-of-Arms. I was going to write about the predecessors of the family anf their last members, but I abandoned the article now that User:Elephantus and User:Nikola_Smolenski have started an edit war over it. I find the acusations made by Elephantus strange. So, anyway; I'm soon requesting this article to be Deleted. In case more Edit Warriors arrise from nowhere. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the artilce. I don't endorse the current version, I just woke up and was dismayed by the reverts that occured overnight (my time) and immediately protected. Try to work out your differences to achieve an article that vistors will find useful - that's why we are here. --Commander Keane 06:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's gonna be hard, 'cause no one's talking except me. :-D --HolyRomanEmperor 00:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A response at last! It is certainly curious. Everyone is happy to muck around with the article (18 revisons in 12 days), but since I protected just one peep on the talk page. By the way, I should have mentioned, I'll unprotect after 7 days, so that will be around 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC). Everyone: make your opinions about the article heard now - severe suspicion may arise if you are silent now but decide to revert war as soon as the block is removed.--Commander Keane 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe everyone already said what he had to say. HRE wrote the article using (what he and I believe are) reliable sources. Elephantus rewrote it without mentioning any sources and in addition removed links to sources without any explanation, and the coat of arms with explanation which is primary researsch. Nikola 09:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources (or should I say "sources"?) for this are poorly researched Greater Serbian propaganda. In the 1990's Serbs created (and resurrected) some of the more vicious nationalistic myths and started believing in them. Questioning these myths would be viewed as treason, and propagating them (by writing pseudo-scientific "papers" which restate the myths forcefully) is seen as a patriotic gesture. Sadly, none of these "papers" go beyond "A is B because A is B" logic, easily seen by any non-Serb with some knowledge of the language and enough time to actually read that rubbish. So if self-serving nationalistic myths should be included in Wikipedia then this article should stay too. I'd prefer putting the gist of it as a sort of footnote to the Greater Serbia article, but that would cause unending edit wars with several Serbian nationalists who are still living under mental siege and think there exists a global anti-Serbian conspiracy. --Elephantus 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please decrease your beligerance during talk pages. AFAIC we have sources from the Montenegrin newspapers that have "martyrized" Rudjer as the first Serb astronomer and it goes all the way across the catholic enc. and Enc. Britannica across Serbian propandist sources and excellent books from 2002 like the "Razvoj Astronomije kod Srba" up to the most recent voting that ocurred several days on TV Pink for the Most Famous Serbs on Earth (so that's nearly two hundred years). AFAIC we have only Ustaša World War to propaganda and Croatian nationalist propaganda from the 1990s that he was a Croat, as well as Encyclopedia Britannica can't make a choice between Serb and Croat. So the only source that blantly puts him as a Croat with no explaination though, is the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Please notice that this is a controversal subject, and his ethnicity may/may not be resolved; but don't you think that your total one-side pushes are at least a little POV? Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked Catholic Encyclopedia and it _doesn't say a word_ about Rudjer Boscovich or his father being Serbs in any way. It calls him simply Dalmatian. I checked Military Encyclopedia, written in Belgrade in 1970, _doesn't say a word_ about Boscovich or his father being Serbs. Maybe you should check your sources more carefully. --Elephantus 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A, here

To stop all confusions: The Pokrajčićs were a Serbian noble family, a part of a Serb tribe known as the Maleševci. I think that this is sufficient to replace "Bosnian" by "Serbian" (although neither would be incorrect :) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Pokrajčići were a Croatian noble family who gave their name to the majority-Croatian settlement of Pokrajčići in central Bosnia? With the sort of "scholarship" referenced by yourself which doesn't bother to go beyond simple statements, never proving anything by citing historical sources, we can only guess. --Elephantus 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally thought that this source spoke enough on his origin: Поријекло Руђера Бошковића. It is actually rather detailed and precise in some matters; explaining bits in detail. I re-scimmed the text and failed to notice any nationalism and/or heavily biased info. Perhaps you have noticed something I failed to see? If there are implications that the Pokrajčićs were a Croatian nobility, it should by any means be stated so in this article. My currect suggestion for the family's origin section is:

• Bosnian (presumably Serbian, if you saw Croatian anywere, let's put a controversy statement) Pokrajčić noble family
• Šćepanović family from Montenegro
• Branković Medieval dynasty (of Lord Vuk Branković of Kosovo)

Eleph, If you happen to know more possibilities of the family's origin, do add. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judging sources?

Before judging sources; one must realize that other nationalist sources like www.hercegbosna.org (which is rather very informing and useful source) used to source Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Note: One of the Edit Warriors here wants those sources put there; but acuses this source of being nationalist and disregards it as usable; while the other does just the same thing; but vice versa. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh-uh

The Google search results for this name are 0. I think it needs renaming, to avoid deletion. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two families?

Are there any references which show that there were two completely different families, one noble and one not? Nikola 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Dubrovnik (Republic of Ragusa) archive was clear on this, Boscovich's in Dubrovnik did not have noble status and obviously were not recognized as a nobility. We could then argue would the old Dubrovnik noble families accept a noble family that came from outside? My opinion is that they would, so the fact they were not recognized speaks enough and is more than reasonable to lead us to the conclusion there was probably more than just one Boscovich family. The text you put in is nice but when it comes o information of Boscovich's of Dubrovnik it is nothing but hearsay, all we have is speculation. Personally I believe there were not just two families but possibly even three or four, who knows.--Raguseo 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They didn't, but they attempted to present themselves as descendants of a noble family, and apparently convinced at least some. The question is whether a separate noble Boscovic family existed. If there are not indications that it did, then there is only one notable family, considered noble by some and not noble by others. Nikola 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)