Talk:Paul Skalich

Da da da da da da to sam

Compromise ? How about to leave only facts such as, he was born in, ... lived in countries,... etc... and leave disputed infos. about his nationality behind... ? Arena jelena probaj da dam oglas zelenilo beograd 1 samo domaće se kupi domaće leave Artinvest ploloo who read it to decide for himse ajde sada rada super je lf.y.. isn't that kako morethayoòpreasonable? <spanlh style="font-size: smaller;" ajde class="autosigned">—Precedingo unsigned comment added by 89.164.118.104 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New sources

I have some new web pages with the articles about Skalic (Skalić) so if anyone is interested:

http://www.knowledgeisfun.com/P/Pa/Paul-Skalic.php

• This is a Wp mirror. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.katastrophenalarm.de/Stanislav_Pavao_Skali%c4%87.html

• This appears some sort of mirror or recapitulation of the German Wp (e.g., circular self-references); anyhow, if I'm reading it correctly, this source merely indicates the same as the current Wp article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.studiacroatica.com/ape6/ape118.htm (Croatian surnames)

• This is not proof-positive that S. is Croatian: it merely corroborates that he has a Croatian surname; otherwise, as below. Please provide authoritative sources that can corroborate this particular individual's heritage or nationality. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, it is intensely frustrating to communicate with anon IPs that vary with the wind and from those who opt to not register for whatever reason. I will not reply to said comments hereafter and will nix contributions as such from said sources if they are not accompanied with citations we can all verify (in accordance with Wp policies and procedures). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable remarks

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)

That's what Joy thinks about this matter. As far as I'm concerned, this argument that four modern encyclopedias have same information doesn't give any credibility to it (false informations should be corrected no matter where and how many times published)! Formerly in many encyclopedias there was a lot of informations in relation to the ex Soviet block and about many countries which were a part of it, with a numerous false informations, all in that and similar prestige encyclopedias. Same case was with Yugoslavia and many republics (today independent countries) which were parts of it. How much accurate can be, for instance Encarta, shows perfectly one exampe; it is said there ( don't know which edition exactly) that Josip Broz Tito was born in a Zagreb which is unbelivable nonsense since he was born in Kumrovec- village near Zagreb, in Zagorje region. In that village you'll find a memorial museum dedicated to him in his family house where he was born. Another example of false informations; in one of that encyclopedias you'll still maybe find one absourd geographical information- that Croatia has only as 129 square miles (!) of a sea ( true fact: more than 11600 square miles, around 3100 miles of seaside and over 1000 islands). :In fact Croatia is a country of a numerous beautifool beaches with very high income out of tourism annually.There are many other examples of a inaccurate informations regarding Croatia, but also about many other countries, esp. smaller ones.

In any case, what's wrong with mentioning the disagreement? Everything I wrote is true. It is a fact that those encyclopedias say these things. How are their writings about him not relevant to him? They're certainly more well-known than the works you cited.

I just requested three books from my library's storage warehouse that I think may provide the answer. If they do not, I will submit a question to Google Answers. The reason I am willing to do this is that I think Scalich is not Croatian. Sincerely, Primetime 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationality?

Part of the problem of his Nationality is the history of Croatia in the 16th century it was being overrun by the Ottomans, depopulated and repopulated, had some German and Hungarian Monarchs.. the confusion lies in how to define "nation" in terms of 16th century Croatia from a 21st century perspective. 19th century historians would have given more priority to ethnicity (Croatia had many ethnic Germans). As for the "Hungarian Count", Hungary and Croatia were in a union and it would have been easy to refer to Croatia and Hungary as the same politically. At the end of the day, where was he born? Zagreb, which is in Croatia, I think is probably the most specific, with "German" and "Hungary" not being totally wrong either, but less specific, depending on what element you wish to emphasis. -- Stbalbach 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the details, essentially unedited, from encyclopedia where arguably it's too much information for that overview article and given the topic matter.

As for the section title: he was born in Croatia and might even be a Croatian national but is also referred to as a national of any number of entities ... hence the section title. It is comparable to references of, say, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, and the like who were born in Canada but now call the United States home. Thus, it's murky; I'm open to edits and alternates, though. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything in print about him besides passing references in those encyclopedias. Where did you guys read where he was born?--Primetime 00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did not read where he was born, other than this article which mentioned he was "from Zagreb". -- Stbalbach 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a tough one. He's not in any biographical dictionary at my library.--Primetime 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• Works of Croation Latinists .. infers he is Croatian.

• Croatian Humanists, Ecumenists, Latinists, and Encyclopaedists, by Darko Zubrinic, Zagreb (1995), says:

Paulus Scalichiis von Lika (Count Pavao Skalic, born in Zagreb, 1534-1575) wrote Dialogus P. Scalichii de Lika ... de Missa Tubingae, 1558, and Glossa Pauli Scalichii de Lika ... in triginta duos Articulos Canonis Missae ex Apostolo [i.e. extracts from the Epistles of S. Paul]. Apud Iodocum Cortesanum: Romae, 1558. The imprint is fictitious; the book was printed in Germany.

Is there any reason to suspect a conspiracy, that he is not actually from Zagreb? Darko Zubrinic doesn't seem like a crackpot, in fact about.com uses one of his articles[1], searching the web he seems like an expert on Croatian history. --Stbalbach 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have no reason to believe the author who wrote the Encarta article is crazy, either. I have no problem with putting your material in this article, though. It does makes his nationality seem even more controversial, but not certain. I mean, we can make a scoreboard of which source says what, but I don't think it'll get us anywhere. It appears as if he was born in Zagreb, but we still don't know why most modern encyclopedias claim he was German--there could be many reasons why that is so (German parents, moved to Germany at an early age, etc.) The article says that his two major works were published in Basil and Cologne--both German-speaking areas.--Primetime 02:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Found this buried in the Darko Zubrinic link:

It is interesting to mention that although Pavao Skalic was born in Zagreb, and Baltazar Adam Krcelic in the vicinity of Zagreb, they both used to indicate the origin of their families to be from Lika and Krbava in their names.

Lika is in Croatia. Skalić is Slavic. And the German Wikipedia says he is Croatian. I don't think it's controversial, as much as just factually wrong to say he is German, a leftover of 19th century (and earlier) nationalistic forces in the Balkans and encyclopedia authors who are just replicating outdated info. Also people in Croatia spoke German, had German backgrounds and published in German language and German presses for the same reasons Darko Zubrinic publishes in English today. --Stbalbach 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article says he excerted a lot of influence over Albert, the first duke of Prussia (a German state). So, he had to have lived in Germany at one time. Also, the book was written in Latin, not German. But, seriously, though--this can't be something passed down from the old days. All of the books in the early part of the century said he was Hungarian. Then, they all changed to saying that he was German. They had to have come to the conclusion he was German after World War I. So, it seems to me that we all have absolutely no idea what his true "nationality" is and that if we don't want to make fools out of ourselves and Wikipedia, we should error on the side of caution and say his nationality is uncertain. I'm willing to leave the entry as it is, as it makes clear that some serious publications believe otherwise. As for the entry "encyclopedia" that's a very important article on Wikipedia. (It's been peer reviewed!) We can't risk making a mistake on that one. This assertion that those three current encyclopedias all copied the idea from each other is a theory, and we shouldn't risk our credibility on a theory.--Primetime 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Primetime you are already becoming a fool calling his nationality as a "uncertain". He's name is of slavic origin (Croatian redaction). In it's construction ( in any redaction!) it has absolutely nothing in common to a German language and esp. Hungarian! You should ask any linguist or slavist about that, to see what he would say to you on that! Also you should check todays croatian surnames! You can even today find many ethnic Croats with that surname. If you ask them if they are Germans or Hungarians, even in their family historic background, they would be laughing at you and called you as a ignorant, who is unable to identify diference between German, Hungarian and Croatian surnames !

Another thing, he was born in Zagreb, Croatia. Conventionally, someone born in, for instance Germany, is oftenly called German so...

Why is present situation that you and "your encyclopedias" didn't hear about many things concerning him, I don't know. But one thing is certain. It's absolutely shameful that such a encyclopedias even today are sticking to a obsolete and incorrect informations that are constant subject of a laughter in a serious academic circles! So you can go on further in that ignorance, or do something for what Wikipedia is just a perfect place- correct long held blunder!

Thanks for the fact-finding – given the above, I too do not believe it is controversial per se to indicate he was Croatian. However, I wonder: is there an alternate or better qualifier to describe his nationality given the timeframe? I mean, did the polity even exist in the 16th century? If not, merely describing him as Croatian may be incorrect; perhaps Slavic or Croat-Hungarian? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is non existing nationality/ ehnicity Croat-Hungarian! It is absolute nonsense! Academic circles would be laughing at such a ridiculous constatation, also on whole of this talk, hence linguists and slavists would very easy define Skalić as a Croat. But it is somewhat understanding that ignorance, hence people in a Anglo-American world don't have that possibility to identify slavic surnames, esp. Croatian ones. Also what is fact, that people from the A-A world have a profoundly diferent comprehension of nationality and ethnicity, which is a result of a diferent historic development than what was it on Central-Eastern Europe. So think on your self/ves when giving and redistributing false, inaccurate informations, from some encyclopedias, which are, in fact, result of a pure ignorance (maybe also something else?!) of a times when Croatia itself wasn't a independent, sovereign, internationally recognised country. Think of how much injustice is to ignore Skalić's original Croat ethnicity, and making a controverse of absolutely nothing, on a artificial way, as it is done here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.49.62 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 May 2006

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, the anon's blusterous and arguably adversarial/revert behaviour is counterproductive; please peruse the encyclopedia article/talk page for additional context, in addition to cautions by various editors to the anon yesterday (from slightly dfferent IPs) regarding this. I don't disagree with contentions for this or that (as above) but, given the above, will judiciously deal with any information that isn't cited or contributed in accordance with Wp norms of behaviour. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On related note, the same anonymous left a completely off-base message on my talk page saying that I opposed his argument, whereas I did exactly the opposite. I told them to chill out, hopefully they will. --Joy [shallot] 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; take a glance at my talk page for excessive ripostes about this and that. Relatedly, I have nixed any notation of S.'s nationality in the encyclopedia article, merely referring to Mr. Skalić as an "encyclopedist" (the wky is perhaps sufficient) ... that should skirt the issue until it's resolved, if not already or ever. :) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Joy, I agree with you and your edits and comments here. E Pluribus I also agree with removing mention of his nationality from the encyclopedia article, it's trivia and irrelevant for that article. -- Stbalbach 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Great; now onward. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joy and you Stbalbach, but must go even further and say that any mentioning of his nationality in a context of "contorversy" is unnecessary, hence any average linguist would say to you that Skalić, Skalich or any redaction of that surname is Croatian slavic construction. Given a fact that there are many Croats in a present Croatia with a same surname, you should only consider our Skalić as a Croat and nothing else. Another interpretations of his nationality are due to false and obsolete interpretation of nationalities of Habsbourg empire ( later Austro- Hungarian empire), and should be regarded as a false and inaccurate.

Just because he was born in Croatia doesn't make him Croatian, just like how books call Russel Crowe Australian even though he was born in New Zealand. Scalich lived in Germany, and now it looks like the Academnic American Encyclopedia, (1998) vol 7., p. 163, says "Had it not been for German writer Paul Scalich, ther term encyclopedia might never have been firmly established." Your theory that all four modern encyclopedias and those two older ones copied the information from each other looks more and more ridiculous every day.--Primetime 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Is there a source that says Scalich / Scaliger is a Croatian name?

No it doesn't say (it doesn't have to say!), but if you were a professional as I am you would be very well avare that all these versions you have mentioned are nothing but the derivates of one Croatian slavic surname. At this way you are showing yourself as a, I must say, ignorant, who is taking himself a right to "teach" one professor,an expert for that matters from Croatia, that he has no idea about what does he say! I will not try to tell you what to read, but you should know that many encyclopedias in Europe, especially in England, then in USA, have wrong informations regarding smaller nations on many fields. That can be easily checked in many cases, for instance in checking a basic facts about some countries, historic owerview, etc. I know that it seems absourd to say that some informations are false in 4-5 encyclopedias, but I can assure you that, at least in a case of Scalic (Skalić) that is very true- checked by the linguists and other professionals related. I don't know why do they all still have this information that is, in fact, inaccurate and obsolete information, but it should be corrected not to make further confusion.

Goran

For JOY to handle and answer

Sve što navodiš već sam jučer učinio. Argumentirao sam s njima preko 3 SATA, pružao im razumne argumente, lingvističke dokaze, činjenice, web stranice kao izvore, ali oni su se i dalje držali slijepo svojih "svetih" enciklopedija, umjesto da su pokušali barem malo razmisliti logikom zdravog razuma. Dakle, dok smo došli do toga da se ja zestim protekli su sati i sati uzaludnog debatiranja- objašnjavanja nekoga tko je upučeniji, ali nije bilo dobre volje da se malo razmisli i revidira očito krive informacije. Što mi ostaje drugo, nego pretpostaviti da je opet riječ o tipičnoj zapadnjačkoj aroganciji i egocentrizmu. Nadalje, ukoliko želiš, možeš im ti ponovno pokušati objasniti neke stvari, ali se ne nadaj puno u to da ćeš pronaći nekoga tko tamo zdravorazumski rezonira!

Ali, mislim da u svakom slučaju treba ukloniti podnaslov "Nationality" jer je čitava ta kontroverza utemeljena na gluposti i netočnim podacima nekih Anglo-saksonskih i zapadnjačkih enciklopedija. Umjesto toga bi bolje bilo da se navede da u istim enciklopedijama (navesti ih) postoje netočni i zastarjeli podatci o nacionalnosti Paula Pavla Skalića i argumentirati zbog čega su netočni!

Nationality

Following text is moved here from article body because it doesn't make sense to boast in article that other (paper) enyclopedias have false data. This can be noted on talk page, but it is not an controversy of any kind. SpeedyGonsales 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References vary regarding Mr. Skalić's nationality. The Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology corroborates his Croatian heritage as does modern Croatian historian Darko Zubrinic.

However, modern English encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, and Encarta indicate that he is German. This could be because he lived at the time when Lika and the rest of Croatia was part of the Habsburg Monarchy, although, as stated above, he spent at least part of his life in Germany.

Older works like the Spanish Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana (Espasa), vol. 19, (1930) page 1166, say that he is an Hungarian count ("y esta voz, ya latinizada, se emplea en el rótulo de la obra del conde húngaro Scalitzus", "and this term, now Latinized, is used in the heading of the work of the Hungarian count Scalitzius.") The Encyclopædia Britannica 11th edition (1911) page 169 says the same, referring to him as "Paulus Scalichius de Lika, an Hungarian count". This raises the possibility that the reference was to the Kingdom of Hungary, of which Lika and Croatia in general was also part at the time.

Uhhh. The information above hasn't been proven to be false. At most, it's been proven to be disputed by other people. The people who dispute it are less-well known than the sources I cited.--Primetime 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seem's to me that you state that Encyclopædia Britannica is infallible, and pure fact that I haven't corroborated online proof is enough to revert someones doing? Please think again, all having in mind that Wikipedia should have better articles than other encyclopedias which all to often are just copy-pasteing others data, and spreading false data just because they don't have true data available/they don't want to bother. Regards SpeedyGonsales 21:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my belief that the six encyclopedias I have cited are proof that he was not Croatian. They are not always right, but each of them are right the vast majority of the time. Until we have proof that he was Croatian, we should note the disagreement in the article and let the reader decide for themselves. This situation warrants this because there is a disagreement, whereas with most other articles, there is none. That's what makes this article different. The disagreement is definitely relevant to Mr. Skalich.--Primetime 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Pt; varied accounts about Mr. S's nationality, from reputable publications, are cited and verifiable. Inclusion of this information is not promulgating one viewpoint or another but merely indicates that various viewpoints of similar authority exist. In fact, given this ambiguity: removal of this information (as has recently occurred) seems rather wanton and partial to one perspective solely. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have said when various sources which are cited and verifiable have various data then we on wikipedia HAVE TO note that? Be so kind and explain me gain of such treatment, because it is obvious (and logical) to have alternate viewpoints to escape the Scilla's dangers when we are talking about things which are disputed, but I don't see this disputed, only misrepresented. I will wait one day for answer, then will remove above notice from article if you don't show where stems this dispute. Regards SpeedyGonsales 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this ambiguity is something not solely stated in EB. Second, I'd rather defer to verifying facts from reputable texts – agreeable or not (as per Wp policies) – than to editors who edit under veil of anonymity, combatively (as per anon), and with possibly circumspect motives. Lastly, insinuating that these sources are spreading 'false data' without measure amounts to little more than opining and highlights the possible bias of the proponents that would prefer we cling to one or few sources that differ from others. Ditto for accusations of misrepresentation: I don't disagree that S. is Croatian, but I also don't disagree that he may be other things too ... and the cited texts demonstrate that to varying degrees.

And we've already cited and demonstrated why this information is valid; any attempts to remove cited information will be rectified. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for English-language encyclopedias to license or rip encyclopedia articles from foreign language encyclopedias; in particular on obscure topics or individuals, where there is not much available in English. For Eastern Europe and the Middle Ages, the Germans have the most comprehensive encyclopedias - for the Middle Ages, they have largest encyclopedia in the world, there is nothing in any other language that comes close, there are many topics that simply have no English encyclopedia articles available anywhere. To seriously study the Middle Ages, German (and French) is the language of choice. It may or may not be the case here, but I would not be surprised if there is a German tradition of calling him German, based on his living in Germany when he wrote the book, or that it was under the Hapsburgs, or that he spoke German. There is a long tradition of Germany and some Balkan states fighting over cultural heritage. Also many "lesser" Encyclopedias will copy what they read elsewhere without verifying it, so if one "authoritative" encyclopedia calls him German it should not be surprising others might as well. In any case, we need an authoritative biography source to really put it to rest, relying on other encyclopedias is error prone. Do these other encyclopedias provide sources? -- Stbalbach 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought most reference works require multiple sources per fact, and other reference books don't count. On another note, last night I read an article in Chamber's Biographical Dictionary on Johann Hedwig that said he was born in "Kronstadt, Transylvania," i.e., Romania. However, it also said that he was a "German botanist." He studied in Germany and spent the rest of his life there. Thus, since he spent at least three-quarters of his life in Germany, he's considered German. Perhaps the situation is similar for Scalich?--Primetime 19:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Johann Hedwig is a good example. Another way to do it is call him "Croatian-German" (see Arnold Schwarzenegger who is listed as "Austrian-American") - but only if proof of German citizenship can be found. That's the real problem here, lack of good sources. -- Stbalbach 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I couldn't disagree with you more that those books with all their fact checkers and multiple-source requirements are bad sources, calling him "Croatian-German" sounds OK. I will change the lead accordingly.--Primetime 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put so much trust with Encyclopedias, they can be just as error prone as Wikipedia, as the recent Nature study showed, and as the many comments above pointed out as to where the bad information can arise and propagate, particularly on obscure topics like this. Also it has not been established that he was German citizen. For all the many reasons that have been pointed out as to why his "German" nationality is suspect, it is best to just say he was born in Croatia, and leave the rest to the nationality section. -- Stbalbach 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nature article showed that Wikipedia has almost as few (4 vs. 3) serious errors per article as Britannica. However, I always thought EB was one of the less-reliable encyclopedias available, so Nature's findings are not exactly good news. I tend to double-check information I find in EB, and I've found a few errors in it. However I've never found any errors in other modern encyclopedias like World Book or Encyclopedia Americana. I know World Book, for example, requires three sources (not including other encyclopedias) for each fact. Based on my experiences, encyclopedias are far more reliable than human beings are. I've found many more errors upon double-checking in the lectures of my professors than any reference book.--Primetime 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

<thread follows to left>

But what sources did the Encyclopedias use? If they are German sources, then yeah, not surprised they say he is German. And mostly likely they are German sources for reasons cited above, and most fact checkers will speak German, but not many Croat. My suggestion was based on if he had a dual citizenship, but it has not been established. I think we can safely say he was born in Zagreb, and lived in Germany. -- Stbalbach 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think debating and parsing the possible errors/rates of various publications is dubious. Pending more authoritative sourcing, which is still somewhat lacking, I think the most recent version is balanced and sufficient. It might also be prudent to prune the citations in the 'Nationality' sxn to bare minima: i.e., not opining about reasons for this or that but merely indicating that varied sources exist (with links) regarding S.'s nationality. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We should be careful with Croatian data. The best is to cite all different data from other sources, and then croatian sources, since they called even Marco Polo or Rudjer Boskovich to be Croatian. After such dubious claims, we should stick to verified encyclopedia sources. I would add Croatian sources at end and add that Croatian as small nations tried to steal big fish to belong to them. They claim is not good source.--212.200.201.173 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We tried to steal big fish to belong to us? And what do you suggest about Rudjer Boskovich′s nationality, he was a Serb? A Catholic Jesuit from Dubrovnik was a Serb? That is weird because it doesn't match to Serbian propaganda that is trying to steal all the scientists. For you even Martians are Serbs. If you don't have irrefutable, authentic proofs of what you are saying, then push off from Wikipedia. --Sheldonium (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Renaming article

Should the article be renamed? His name in English is Scalich not Scalić, just like Rome isn't called Roma in English, either. All works that aren't written by Croats or in Croation refer to him as either Scalich or Skalich.--Primetime 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• If there are no objections within a day or so, I will move the entry.--Primetime 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the MoS article naming conventions supports using the English version. -- Stbalbach 23:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not resistant to a move, I see little reason nor a pressing need to do so at this juncture. In any event, the question then becomes: which spelling should it be moved to? I think doing so without yet nailing down S.'s nationality per se is analogous to putting the proverbial cart before the horse. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Enthisiasticly <sic> deleting

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) !

I'll enthisiasticly keep on deleting any kind of rubish on wiki, also this one...

Ciao! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.13.95 (talk • contribs) .

Please read the above lengthy and detailed discussions and provide facts to support your position. Thank you.-- Stbalbach 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The above anon editor is also editing Encyclopedia to reflect Skalic as being Croat. Reverted there also, until the anon user can provide facts to support his position from reliable sources. -- Stbalbach 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am deleteing this paragraph simply from reason of common sense. Skailc is Croat- THERE IS NO ANY KIND OF CONTROVERSY (ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUCH A IGNORANTS, BUT REFUSE TO THINK FOR THEM SELF!) ! If you were a slavist as I am you would be knowing that Skalic, Skalich, Skalić etc. are all of slavic origin. Further, in a modern Croatia there are many familyes with that kind of surname ( also important to mention that all that family names are notorious in country for centuries). And on the end- I don't think that Wiki should keep on with old,(for scientists) well known mistakes of "solid" encyclopedias like "Britannica", "Americana"... concerning some matters (esp. when it comes on smaller nations!). If you don't have better (more accurate,much more recent!) sources and letters you shouldn't insist on "CONTROVERSY". On this way wikipedia is becoming more and more ridiculous for the anyone who knows somewhat better on this ( and some other) matter than usual user. This also means that Wiki is missing to provide a scientific proven informations for it's users.

But why am I so surprised- it is said fact that even country like England still doesn't have a department for Croatian language and culture (not a single university!). If you want it, you can check it easily! But,I guess, all of you are just a products of that kind of society/es.

Your proces of corroborating is different that this of many countries in Central, Eastern, South-eastern Europe, also many countries in other continents which aren't of western origin...

While others rely equally on sources and common sense (which means to use little more your own brain!), your proces is reduced to basic repetition of something from some sources, doesn't matter if they are true/accurate or false/mistake. In fact your kind of corroborating doesn't pay much of attention on checking... it's enough that it is written in "Scientific Bibles" like "Britannica" ...

Ciao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.13.95 (talk • contribs) .

You may be right, but unfortunately "common sense as a Croat" is not a verifiable source. We have to use the English sources we have available to us (not all of them are old). If you have a better source, than please, by all means, post it here. If it is obvious and common sense you should have no problem finding a source. Until then please be careful, as you have violated the WP:3RR rule - a lot of people have worked hard and come to a consensus on the current article, based on the sources we have available. -- Stbalbach 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Skalic

Yes, I can see that you are repeating yourself like as if you were a parrot, also a very big FAHIDIOT ( or someone who's repeating something withouth any understanding!)... So, as it seems, policy gained a decisive victory over basic scientific truth! Vive la démocratie! It seems that this "encyclopedia" is fool of lawyers and politicians, but there's none of, for instance: historians, linguists, slavists, ...

You (likewise some others there) are not worth while of any reasonable discussion- simply from the fact of their dogmatic blindness ( something similar as a dogmatic blindness of Christianity of middle ages).

And, please- don't be mad at me, but as a Slavist, it's my own duty to remove something that is false.

Regards

Skalic, if you are unable to control yourself and stop violating the rules of Wikipedia, your accounts will be blocked and/or the article protected from further editing. Wikipedia simply reflects what other people say (OR ANYONE HAS TO SAY SOMETHING REGARDLESS OF IT'S ONW KNOWLEDGE ON SOMETHING !!!) - we are reporters - unless you have a verifiable source, we have to report on what other people say. What you say may be true, but you have provided no source that says so. -- Stbalbach 13:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FAHIDIOT !!! Is that like "distinctive journalism" of CNN !!! And you ask yourselves why the rest of the world doesn't like you! To be even more absourd- you are doing it in a good faith!

Perfunctory is something that will destroy western civilisation- not the terrorists!

I also think that work on something that has an ambition to call itself "encyclopedia" should be "little more" serious than "distinctive journalism"... "Reporters" shouldn't be directing encyclopedias- they simply aren't enough educated for such a work! But, who knows, maybe reporters do direct encyclopedias in western world! Something like that is absolutelly impossible in my country!

Regards

Semi-protection request

I've put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology corroborates"?

The website quoted in footnote 2 ([2]) does not support this statement. First, it's not the job of any "Ministry of Science and Technology" to "corroborate" a historical figure's ethnicity. If the page said such a thing, it would count as little more than a political statement of opinion. But this page isn't even authored by the ministry itself, it's only hosted by it. This is just a database with summaries of research projects. They are not in any way connected to the ministry, and the responsibility for each project and for the summary is evidently just the individual researcher's. So, what we have is a Croatian historian at the university of Zagreb, M. Girardi-Karšulin, who casually states an opinion that he was Croat, not more and not less. Please remove the reference to the Ministry from the text, as it's highly misleading as to the nature of the source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'd like to toss in a link to this section in my talk archives. 83.131.53.28 doesn't seem to understand the importance of WP:V or WP:NOR in terms of policy, despite my best attempts to elaborate. =\ I'm really not sure what we do about this. If there are sources out there, I'm happy to include them, but if there is a controversy surrounding his name, it doesn't seem appropriate to just delete the section. It's not really our job to decide his ethnicity, as I see it, only to report that A thinks it's X, and B thinks it's Y. That's the crux of WP:NPOV. Luna Santin 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Once more on Nationality ;[

Hi, just having done one more edit of the article, I meanwhile decided to create an account here. I ask competent contributors to please note hidden text there and remove it afterwards.

On deWP [which does not seem a reliable source at all], I noted, a while ago, following links:

• http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/philo/galerie/neuzeit/scaligiu.htm
• http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm Projekt SVIBOR - Collecting Data on Projects in Croatia - Project code: 6-01-334 (en)
• http://www.hic.hr/books/latinists/04latin.htm
• http://www.croatianhistory.net/gif/krbavska.jpg Chart showing a by far smaller area "Lika", quite far away from Zagreb.

Other Names= Paul Skalich, Paulus Scalichius von Lika, Scaligius, Principe de la Scala, Count of Hun and Lycka, "Markgraf von Verona". (One will find some of his books published with quoted attributions).

BTW: Marco Polo, very probably born in Venetian Korčula, today Croatia, can as well be called a Croatian. However, who, besides Croatians, should see any importance on this?

Best, Wolfgang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Any IP. (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).Ooops.: Any IP. 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pavao Skalic

Why you just keep on reverting lies about his nationality? This man was Croat as sure as Shakespeare was English! But no one is asking questions what is his nationality or inventing his "new" nationality! Please stop spreading lies, mistakes, etc., ... And, you know, Brittanica and some similar projects are full of mistakes and missleading facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything decent to say instead! Do you think Britannica, ... encs. are 100 % trustful resource ?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And also, it's absurdly that this article has more about his nationality than his work! That's also another argument to delete this part of text since it isn't useful information! It's important where he was born, lived... solely! So, go figer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to verify the facts that you wish to add.  Chzz  ►  18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since most of the reliable sources spell his name as Paul Scalich, I think we should move this entry to that name. This is the English version of Wikipedia, and we should be using Anglicized spelling. For example, the Rome entry isn't named "Roma."--Best Dog Ever (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some websites which say Skalić was a Croat:

• Skalić, Pavao | Hrvatska enciklopedija
• Institut za filozofiju | Digitalna baština | Pavao Skalić
• Skalić, Pavao | Proleksis enciklopedija

Here are some websites which say that Skalić (Scalic, Scalich, Skalic, Skalich...) is Croatian surname:

• Surname Skalić @ Acta Croatica
• Surname Skalić | prezime.net
• Skalic - Names Encyclopedia

He had surname which is completely Croatian (only South Slavic nations have surnames on -ić) and a name which was often at that time in Croatia. Definitely his name nor surname implicates he was German and especially not Hungarian. He may be living in Germany at that time, but Germany in the 16th century was divided into tens of small kingdoms, duchies and cities. --Sheldonium (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not a consensus that Paul Skalich was a Croatian. Please, stop insisting on putting your personal agenda here, despite different sources and lack of agreement. Just revert your edit and gain consensus or surch for a third opinion. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion? Should I contact academician to prove you that he was Croat? What would he be if not Croat? He was born in Zagreb, capital of Croatia. Does Skalić/Skalich/Skalic/Scalic/Scalich sound German to you? Did he had German parents/grandparents? Did you see the sources I listed, do you see the map of Germany in 16/17 century?--Sheldonium (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Disputed nationality

The nationality section in the article clearly provides reliable sources confirming the nationality of this person is disputed. Reliable Encyclopedias state he was a German in his identification. There are алсо claims he was Hungarian. Despite these facts an editor insists on his Croatian nationality, that is also mentionened as possible in the articla. I think the neutral opinion excludes suchcategoric claims in that complicated case. Jingiby (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"clearly provides reliable sources " you are hypocrite you know. When I provided encyclopedic sources explicitly saying that some "Serbs" from Dubrovnik, are Croats or have clear Croatian origin you said the sources were not reliable and blahblahblah. Your nationalistic behaviour will not be tolerated. --Sheldonium (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting dates for Joachim Sterck van Ringelbergh's book

Just noting a cross-entry inconsistency: the entry here gives a publication date of 1541 for van Ringelbergh's book, but the page devoted to JsvR himself gives 1538. Lancelot-lynx (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)