Talk:Vladimir Prelog/Archive 1

Archive 1

From Croatia???

As it can be seen clearly from his autobiography [[1]], his birthplace is

Sarajevo in the province of Bosnia, which then belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy and later, in 1918, became part of Yugoslavia.

Also,

For many years, when still a Yugoslav citizen, I was already a Swiss patriot and in 1959 I obtained Swiss citizenship. However, I consider myself a world citizen and I am very grateful to my adopted country that it allows me to be one.

His education and scientific work and achievements took place in Czechoslovakia and Switzerland:

The period 1924 to 1929 was spent studying Chemistry at the Czech Institute of Technology in Prague, Czechoslovakia. The supervisor of my thesis was Professor Emil Votocek, one of the prominent founders of chemical research in Czechoslovakia. My mentor, however, was Rudolf Lukes, then lecturer and later successor of Votocek to the chair of organic chemistry. To Lukes I owe the greatest part of my early scientific education, and he remained my close friend until his premature death in 1960.

At this critical point I received an invitation of Richard Kuhn to give some lectures in Germany, and shortly afterwards Leopold Ruzicka, whom I had asked for help, invited me to visit him on the way. With these two invitations, it was possible for me to escape with my wife to Switzerland. Through Ruzicka I soon obtained generous support of CIBA Ltd. and started work in the Organic Chemistry Laboratory at the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. The cooperation with Ruzicka lasted many years and enabled me to make my slow progress up the academic hierarchical ladder. Starting as assistant, I became "Privat Dozent", "Titularprofessor" associate (ausserordentlicher) professor and in 1952 full professor ad personam. Finally, in 1957, I succeeded Ruzicka as head of the Laboratory, a height that I never dreamt of when I was a student in Prague. In becoming director of the Laboratory I reached, according to Peter's principle, the level of my incompetence and I tried hard for several years to step down. Surrounded and supported by a group of very able young colleagues, I finally succeeded in introducing a rotating chairmanship from which I was exempted. So far this has worked very satisfactorily and it may have helped some of my colleagues to resist tempting offers from other Universities.

As to Croatia, where he lived and worked for over 15 years,

This is why I was so eager to accept the position of a lecturer at the University of Zagreb in 1935. I did not know that I had to fulfil there all the duties of a full professor and to live on a salary of an underpaid assistant

After the German occupation of Zagreb in 1941 it became clear that I was likely to get into serious trouble if I remained there.

Bear in mind that, that time, Zagreb and so-called Independent State of Croatia were ruled by Croatian murderous Nazi Pavelic's regime.

So, what is the point of writing nonsenses like

Thanks to him and Ružička, both Nobel prize winners from Croatia, Zurich has become one of the most significant centers of modern organic chemistry.??? --Purger 22:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I happened to know the late Prof. Prelog, and I once listened to one of his short speeches on that matter. He emphasized his gratitude for the opportunity to be a naturalized Swiss citizen (though he never mastered Swiss German), and he pointed out that in Croatia, in the times of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and ever since, there were so many upheavals, but whatever happened, if you were an honest person, you always had to be in opposition. Whoever happened to be the ruler, you simply couldn't be honest and pro-government. In Switzerland, he said, an honest person can be pro-government or anti-government at any time without jeopardizing his honesty. And that's what he liked about Switzerland. So it's true that he was from Croatia, but it's also true that he was very glad not to be in Croatia. 85.212.189.181 04:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not true that he was from Croatia! Just read his autobiography. He lived there (Croatia) for over fifteen years - and the same way he might be considered as someone from Czechoslovakia or even more rightful - from Switzerland - where he lived and worked for more than fifty years. Also, the 'speech' you mentioned belongs to the tell-tales - if it is not verifiable. If claiming something to be a truth - please, provide the way of verifying it.--Purger 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In view of his highly cosmopolitan attitude and Swiss passport, the matter of his Croatian origin should not be overemphasized. But it is still a fact that his father, Milan Prelog, was a Croatian (though with some Austrian ancestors) and his mother Mara was a Croatian (with some Italian ancestors), and his mother tongue was Croatian. That's why he writes, on page 3 of his autobiography: "The government tried to lure young and qualified Croats from Croatia ... to settle in the new province [Bosnia] by various inducements. Thus in 1905, my father came as a young high-school teacher from Croatia to Sarajewo, where I was born".

Yet anoter tell-tale or you have a verifiable source? The autobiography on the pages of the Nobel Prize Committee does not have page 3.--Purger 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean his autobiography, a book of 120 pages entitled "My 132 Semesters of Chemistry Studies", published by the American Chemical Society, Washington DC 1991, ISBN 0-8412-1772-6. 85.212.175.202 18:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So he clearly describes his father as a Croatian. The term "from Croatia" in the article is simply meant to refer to this undeniable ethnic origin, notwithstanding the fact that he later became a Swiss citizen and that his attitude was entirely cosmopolitan anyway. Hence it's unfair to call it nonsense. But it would be more precise to write, instead of "both Nobel prize winners from Croatia", "both Swiss Nobel prize winners who were ethnic Croatians". 85.212.204.34 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

I have changed the text cause mr Prelog is not FROM CROATIA, HE IS FROM BOSNIA!

Sorry, if you read his biography.. he was born in Sarajevo, which is in Bosnia... but do you know why? Because his father worked there in school. His parents are originally from Croatia and as soon as his father got job in Zagreb, they moved.

Actually he is from Croatia, the fact he is born in Bosnia and Herzegovina (it was Yugoslavia actually) means nothing. His parents were on work (his father primarily) in Sarajevo and he was thus born there, shortly after his birth he and his family came back to Croatia where he went to school and grew up, went to school and worked. Later he moved to Switzerland due to work where he ultimately died. He and his parents and whole family were ethnic Croats. He can be only Croatian. For example the fact Niko Kranjcar was born in Vienna (Austria) doesn't makes him an Austrian as he was born there while his father worked (played) there for the local football club. --Factanista 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Alkalada

The reason I keep reverting you, is that Prelog was never considered a Bosnian. His parents were from Croatia, but were working in Sarajevo at the time, so he happened to be born there, and later on, they moved back to Croatia. It's also an undisputed fact that he was an ethnic Croat. Still, if you want to go by where he did most of his work and where he lived for most of his life, he would be considered a Swiss chemist. f an edit war continuesm I'm just going to change the lead sentence to:

Vladimir Prelog (July 23 1906 – January 7 1998) was a renowned Swiss chemist who worked in Prague, Zagreb and Zurich and who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1975. He was an ethnic Croat.

I'd also support anyone else who would make this change to the introduction. —KingIvan 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, here is the explanation. Please do not revert until you give me a very good example of the opposite.

He was born in Bosnia, and believe it or not, Bosnia existed even at that time although it was part of the so called Austria Hungarian empire. And Bosnia and Herzegovina is a fully internasionally recognized and sovereing modern state.

And the point is that everybody, croats, bosniaks and serbs, born in Bosnia is considered as a Bosnian or Bosnian and Herzegovinian. If you doesnt agree, then look at CIA homepages and check after. And since we all know he was ethnically a croat, then I have put in the text that he was a croat by stating that he is ethnic croat.

Everybody born in Bosnia, is a Bosnian with different ehnicities. I hope this clearled the dispute. Please dont revert. Alkalada 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not quite as clear-cut as that. If you are born in Bosnia, you are simply Bosnian by birth, and as you know, Bosnia's status has varied according to time in question. Since 1992, it is an independent country, before that, it was a Socialist Republic within another independent country. In the past it has been an Austro-Hungarian province and an Ottoman vilayet. Its borders have switched frequently and to this very day, there is no clear indication as to where Bosnia ends and Herzegovina begins; not to forget that during the interward period (First Yugoslav Kingdom), Bosnia and Herzegovina was entirely abolished as any form of administrative body. As for people born in Bosnia today and them being Bosnian is all together a seperate issue. If both of his parents are Croats, then 99.9% for certain, he will grow up to identify as being ethnicly Croatian; the only thing which can be Bosnian about him now is his legal status (državljanstvo), something to which he has full birthright, but may again choose not to accept. Declaring himself Croatian will certainly enable him to have Croatian documentation as this is what their government currently allows for its declared nationals living outside of its borders, and by right, he should still have the right to live and work in Bosnia & Herzegovina; in other words, he can have ethnicity and statehood pertaining to another nation and not be Bosnian in any way. Evlekis 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Any attack on Bosnia and Herzegovina is like an attack on me personally. You say things like it is only a coincident that Bosnia become fully independent in 1992. You are talking about the kingdom of Yugoslavia, but who cares? They were serbian kings who were nationalistic and who used opression on us muslims and on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnia is a historical independent country from 1100 to 1500 it was first independent but not oficially independent and after 1256 it was fully independent and was even an kingdom in 1300 to 1400 until the turks ocupied Bosnia.

We are independent now and we were independent before. Alkalada 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And btw... in your user page, why are you not putting your name on Bosnian language like you are doing with serbian and croatian language? Why?

Dont you recognize the Bosnian language? Alkalada 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You should listen to Elvekis; he knows what he's talking about - being born in a certain place does not automatically make them a person of that state. One example for you is "John Farnham". He was born in the UK but he is an Australian singer. There are no claims by British people that he is one of them, and there are no edit wars on his article over whether he is British or Australian, simply because the people realize he spent most of his life and work in Australia, not Britain. The same applies here. So the only two nations who could actually have a claim to Prelog are Croatia and Switzerland. —KingIvan 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ivan, No... if you are born in Bosnia you are automaticcally Bosnian. Please accept that.

Seriously, learn how to speak English properly. Spread your propaganda on bs.wikipedia beacuase we don't need you here. A few more reverts on this page from you and I will change it to Swiss chemist. You have not countered my argument because you know I'm right, thus I am reverting you. —KingIvan 11:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your backing Ivan. Hey Alkalada, it isn't only Bosnia which has had its status altered over the centuries and I never said it wasn't independent before 1992. Croatia and Serbia have both changed statuses, from provinces, to countries, to partners and so forth, and their borders haven't stayed the same either. Now I am not attacking Bosnia and I am not attacking you either. Bosnia, whether independent, Yugoslav or even Ottoman, is my favourite part of the whole region. It may have seen the worst bloodshed but, to this very day, it is also the place where there is the strongest warmth and unity among the nations in other parts, and much of the best local music and culture is the product of Bosnia; now if I take exception to the aspirations of Bosniak nationalism, and their unification with Sunni militias from the Middle East, that does not mean that I don't like the country nor the other people, many Muslims are good people, equally I hold no sympathies for Croatian nor Serbian nationalists either, and least of all, Macedonian. I have included Bosnian on my own userpage now. Now let's talk about people, do you know that your own idenitifcation as Muslims is a fairly recent development? When Bosnia and Herzegovina first became independent, not a single person was Islamic; not before its territories fell to the Ottomans did people begin to convert, and not until hundreds of years later did they choose to be seperate from Serbs and Croats. Whilst Serbs and Croats were embracing each other and preparing for unification, as non-Croat Catholics were becoming Croat and non-Orthodox Serbs were becoming Serbian, another Slavic group of people found themselves unsure exactly what they were. Is this when the Bosniak dream started? No. In the earlier days, as Slavs, they were accepted by both groups and even today, hardened Serb nationalists call the Muslims Serb, and their Croatian counterparts say they are Croatian; meanwhile, some people who are are Muslim by faith do declare themselves as being Serb, Croat or Montenegrin (eg. 40,000 Croatians are Muslim in Croatia alone). Only when the rifts came between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs did the desire to be different on religious grounds emerge, and thus was born the Bosniak nation: but does anyone Orthodox or Catholic identify as Bosniak? I doubt it, as for Muslim, well that would be someone having a joke on the census papers. So if you are going to be radical in support of Muslims, then you too declare jihad on your own pre-Ottoman invasion ancestors. If you are willing to embrace Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats, then be decent and accept that they too embrace their own ethnic affiliates accross the borders, so you embrace them too, and stop this nonsense about Yugoslavia never having existed because it did do, and whilst it did, it was relevant for all that happened inside it. Again, I have nothing against Bosnia or its people. Evlekis 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Evlekis, you just stated the worst personal attack on my nation, my culture, and my people. Please... do you HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AT All that we BOSNIAKS WERE SERBS OR CROATS BEFORE THE OTTOMAN INVASION? Do you?

I strongly reject your bullshit propaganda and I strongly reject all nationalistic propaganda which states that bosniaks were serbs or croats before ottoman invasion. That is so untrue and I will never accept that!

First of all we have allways been a united people. Our people have allways loved Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state and the enemies to Bosnia have allways been serbs and croats. From the time before Ban Kulin, to the time when Ban Kulin defeated all the enemies of Bosnia and to the time when Tvrtko defeated the serbs in Herzegovina, and Trebinje region... from the time Tvrtko made Bosnia the biggest countrie in Balkans, from all those days the serbs and croats were enemies of the Bosnian state and they are enemies as of today too.

Their is a historical evidence of our nation and our history. King Tvrtko, the Bosnian king who defeated Zahumlje (current Herzegovina) and Trebinje region (Current Herzegovina), stated that he was a bosnjanin, who had an own religion, called Bogumilism and that his people were called Bosnjanin who had their own religion.

The thing is, that in Bosnia before the turks deliberated our souls by converting us to the real religion of Islam, there were 3 people. There were Catholics, Orthodox and Bogumulism who both Catholics and Orthodox hated because they saw us as shame to Christianity.

The thing about this 3 people were that we Bosnjanin, of bogumilism faith, we loved our only homeland, called Kingdom of Bosnia. We accepted the flag with golden lilys, but once again the enemies of the state, croats and serbs chosed to reject the lilys and was an opponent to the Bosnian state.

When turks arrived we saw our chanse to get fully controle of our only homeland and we converted to Islam and saved our souls. By this, the croats with bigh help from Vatican and serbs with help from eastern parts of Balkans resisted the invasion and fought against the turks. We Bosnjanin, now Bosniaks, accepted Islam and then the turks changed the name of our people cause in Turish language, Bosnjanin means bosnjak. And after the evil kingdom of Yugoslavia and evil communist tried to destroy our nation and culture but thanks to Alija Izetbegovic and other intelectuall bosniaks, we saved our culture, history, nation... not only from genocide during the war, but also from destroying all our traditions as a unified nation with Bosnia as only homeland.

I hope this explains everything. I am sick of your bullshit propaganda. Alkalada 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're that touchy that you see it as an attack, then so be it, I don't care. Bosnia is so named because of a topographical feature, whose name predates the arrival of your people. Even if once upon a time, all its people united as Bosnians against aggressor Serbs and Croats, collectively today, Serbs and Croats make up a little over 50% of Bosnia's population and they are autochtonous, not relocated. They in turn once sought unity with their respective national states; the only people who today believe in an isolated Bosnia, are you and your middle-east fanatics. Even a large number of Muslims do not share your radical views. When the Turks arrived, both Orthodox and Catholic followers converted to Islam; marriages have always been mixed and there is no way that conversion of Islam could have happened to every Bosnian not withstanding one, whilst not happening to a single Catholic or Orthodox adherent. And even if they were once seperated, there were only two spheres of religious influence, so your so-called ancestors who you claim are not mine had to live in one of them. For many centuries after the 14th, nationalism waned and people often identified by a number of names and only in the 18th century was there a revival of nationalism; now I don't claim that all Muslims were previously Serb or Croat exclusively; some were, like it or not, but my point is that there were many national names used by people in the 18th century and there did come a time, when everyone inside the old Serbo-Croat language area, accepted being Slavic, and one of either Serb or Croat and this included Muslims. Even the New Bosnia movement, to which Arch Duke Ferdinand's assassins belonged, contained Muslims AND fought for a Greater Serbia, which in turn was seeking to unite Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in one kingdom; whilst ALL of today's Bosniaks, Muslims, Bokeljs, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Šokci, Janjevs, Bunjevs etc. would have been swallowed up between the three. The modern Bosnian nation is a more recent revival which is supported by its Muslim contingent only. No Serb or Croat pushed for an independent Bosnia in 1992; not even the Muslims cried for a republic of their own in 1919 as they were too busy being Serbs, or Croats; such was their sentiment that today, they who you call your people are Europe's only relative majority. You are the one, calling Bosnian Serbs and Croats alike Bosnians, and you've never even said Bosnian by what, statehood or ethnicity? As for your rubbishing of Yugoslavia, well I suggest you go to the library and read before you copy what some of your Palestinian Imams are telling you: Yugoslavia replaced the already functional Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in December 1929; the various Communist parties accross the Kingdom were emerging in the late 1930's, and during the early war period, by the time of the recreation of Yugoslavia and establishment of six republics, all six had its own League of Communists which was created by fractions which were created beforehand. As for Bosniaks being a suppressed nation within Yugoslavia, if that were true, nothing was stopping you voicing your anger and committing terrorist attacks in your own name from 1918 onwards, you could have even sided with Austria during WWI, but you chose not to; even during WWII, nothing was stopping you from taking up arms and using them against the NZH, the Chetniks or the Partizans, but instead, your Bosnians were to be found in all corners of the conflict fighting alongside whoever they felt they believed in, against others who included others who would later become your own when a Muslim aspiration was born (not reborn). You are a troll so I won't be responding to you any more and I am sure that no intelligent user will see me as anti-Bosnian or pro-anyone. Evlekis 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, I am going to revert on sight any edit to an article done by Alkalada. His block hasn't taught him anything, and, despite so much effort, no one else can teach him either. I'm sure all good editors will agree with me, and revert on sight as well. —KingIvan 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, we needn't exhaust ourselves trying to explain things to a culture-fascist. The more I think of it, the more I think that Alkalada is a sockpuppet of a permanently blocked User:Arvatov. He would constantly produce rubbish which was anti-Yugoslav. The regular editors from the former republics are mixed in their feelings but most reputable ones never viciously attack the country, or any regime which was opposed to themselves. I am not 100% sure that this is a disguise of Arvatov, but he is none the less disruptive, and a troll. My advice: don't respond to his discussions; and when he is seen to revert to editions which are not necessarily acts of vandalism, but harm, I'd report it to one or two editors: preferably not from the former Yugoslav republics incase anyone cries bias. Evlekis 09:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada freely admits that he's the same user as User:Hahahihihoho (see here for some proof) - another permanently blocked editor. Also, judging by his edits, I am certain that Alkalada is also User:Damir Mišić. —KingIvan 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Damir Misic!

I can guarantee you and give you my word on that. However, I am Hahahihihoho. And please stop mention that on every article, talkpage and to every moderator. Everyone knows I am Hahahihihoho but I am not banned anymore and have equall rights as you do to revert and edit at Wikipedia.

You are Damir, and most can see that. And I will continue to mention that you are also Hahahihihoho, because it is relevant - you are evading you ban by using this account. Besides this, the right to edit does not mean the right to edit and insert falsifications, POV, nationalism, and poor grammar/English skills. —KingIvan 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You Croatian nationalist much one for all accept the fact that everyone born in Bosnia is Bosnian wheather they are bosniaks, serbs, croats, jews, gypsies or talibans.

Alkalada 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't. The birthplace is hardly relevant, in itself; what matters is how the person felt, where he lived, where he achieved his career's heights, how he was perceived by other people etc.. For many people, it's not simple to unambigously say that one is XXXian. That notice is in the intro to give a brief notice to the reader about which geographical area/country the person was connected with.
If you continue to use that silly argument, please also make sure that Vojislav Šešelj, Ante Pavelić, Andrija Artuković, Ratko Mladić are marked as "Bosnians". Duja► 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They ALL are bosnians!

And this isnt silly, this is only the truth. Alkalada 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the CIA states that, you are a Bosnian wheather ETNICITY, wheather you are serb, croat or bosniak. Just look at Ivo Andric, he never said he was serb or croat, he was a proud Bosnian.

Bosnian exist, wheather you like it or not. Alkalada 12:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this for a while, but I just hate seeing people argue and going in circles, not agreeing on anything. Alkalada, you are an overexcited person that needs to stop looking at the world through a narrow mind. Your attempt to deny the Croats and Serbs their constitutional and moral rights as a people is laughable. You do not understand that a persons place of birth does not automatically determine who they are; there are sometimes many factors, mostly ethnicity and personal choice. Historians realize this too, and thankfully, do not look at the subject as you do, and when writing encyclopedias, books, articles, etc, they look at the whole picture, and not a narrow-minded view like the one you are trying to push through. While you should feel free to edit whatever you wish, you must bear in mind that wikipedia is not your playground--just because you don't like something, does not mean you have the right to remove information at will. There are some things on wiki I do not agree with either, but I know that I should pick my battles, and sometimes even realize that I was wrong. I also suggest to you to get off your high horse and quit being so emotional, people will be less inclined to take you seriously if you continue to act so. You act like everyone here is against your country, which is simply not true, and you take everything as a personal attack, which is ridiculous. I am half Bosnian myself, part of my family was born just 5 miles from the Croatian border while the other half are from Dalmacija. One side calls themselves Bosanci, the others Dalmatinci, but in the end, foremost of all, they all call themselves Hrvati. So please, try to understand the situation from a broader point of view. --Jesuislafete 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for your claim that Ivo Andric never called himself a Croat........enjoy: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Ivo_Andric_declaring_himself_as_Croat.jpg

--Jesuislafete 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly I do not completely understand why people are getting so worked up. Dr. Prelog born and initially belonged to the Balkan states. The unfortunate fact is that the political boundaries in the region were (are?) rather volatile. The concept of nation-state cannot be undisputably applied to that region in that era. While the ethinicity of Dr. Prelog is known, the "original" nationality is not known undisputably. The current article makes due reference to all the important places in the life of Dr. Prelog. If the article can be made even more encompassing of the various points of views, I would supposrt such a change. Bosnians, Croats, Serbs, "Balkans", Swiss and other interested nationalities and cultural groups can make a major contribution to the political and geographic articles in wikipedia. I must however ask that an article on such a great chemist must not be messed up in politics. The way I see it, I am unlikely to encounter any new reaction mechanism if we decide whether Dr. Prelog was a Bosnian, Croat or Swiss. Atoms alas are ignorant of these human attributes 203.115.91.215 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Vladimir Prelog declared himself az Swiss jugoslavian orgin (You can see that in Enciclopedia Prosveta from 1951) - Jovanvb

I propose that Dr. Prelog be called a European Chemist as it was common for scientist to work outside their countries for major amount of time. What the wording could say is, he was a european chemist who worked in.... Also, the nationality that he acquired later (swiss I presume) can be ascribed as naturalized citizen of.

I removed mention of his nationality. I don't see the need for it to be mentioned at the start of the article like that, especially because we can conclude this anyway from the rest of the article. --No.13 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I said it before and i'll say it again: he is ethnicly Craot, and u cant change it. So, why isnt there in the article 'was a Croat chemist..' ? Maybe because he worked in Switzerland? Bollocks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.205.114 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)