This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paul Skalich article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
http://www.katastrophenalarm.de/Stanislav_Pavao_Skali%c4%87.html
http://www.studiacroatica.com/ape6/ape118.htm (Croatian surnames)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Found this buried in the Darko Zubrinic link:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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!
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
[1] as does modern Croatian historian Darko Zubrinic
[2].
However, modern English encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica [3] Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, and Encarta [4] 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" [5]. 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.
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)
References
darko
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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) .
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) .
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
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
I've put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paul Skalich article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
http://www.katastrophenalarm.de/Stanislav_Pavao_Skali%c4%87.html
http://www.studiacroatica.com/ape6/ape118.htm (Croatian surnames)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Found this buried in the Darko Zubrinic link:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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!
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
[1] as does modern Croatian historian Darko Zubrinic
[2].
However, modern English encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica [3] Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, and Encarta [4] 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" [5]. 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.
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)
References
darko
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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) .
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) .
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
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
I've put in a request for the article to be semi-protected. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)