Talk:Paul Skalich

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reasonable remarks 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Enthisiasticly <sic> deleting

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

message: The website quoted in footnote 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology corroborates"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Disputed nationality  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflicting dates for Joachim Sterck van Ringelbergh's book