Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 3

; Archives
	January 2004 – February 2006; February 2006 – March 2006; March 2006 – December 2006; ; ; ;

This is an archive of past discussions about Nicolaus Copernicus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

→

Please visit Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality to read and contribute to discussions regarding Copernicus' nationality – thank you!

Some messages concerning Copernicus

On Polish Wikipedia Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nicolaus_Copernicus_2

Nicolaus Copernicus

We have a troll denying he was Polish. Usuall stuff, but some monitoring is needed before this vandal gives up and goes away.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikołaj Kopernik under attack After a lengthy debate which showed that there is no reason to doubt his nationality and vote that confirmed this one of the most active users [38] started to delete every sentence that mentions Kopernik was Polish. He also claims that Gdańsk wasn't part of Poland but of Saxony hereDanzig Research Society --Molobo 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is copying whom [1] This is exactly the stuff that Molobo & Co write, the part about Nazis and recent fellow travellers claim Copernicus... Is maxwellhouse in uk copying Molobo and wikipedia without giving credit to wikipedia, or what is going on ?

Poll results

A nonbinding poll was conducted to determine how the issue of Copernicus' nationality should be handled in the lead of the article. Results can be found here.

Poll summary

Note that this summary does not count questionable votes by: anonymous IP users, new users/alleged sockpuppets.

1.Polish astronomer - 13 votes

Votes: Balcer ,Space Cadet ,Molobo,Anatopism , SylwiaS ,logologist , mikka , Ak47K , Irpen , KonradWallenrod , Halibutt, Lysy, Olessi

2.No mention of nationality in the lead - 6 votes

Votes: Dagox ,David Kernow ,Matthead ,Splette ,TKE,Chris 73

3.Polish astronomer of German origin - 3 votes

Votes: De Bart,Ksenon,ragesoss

4.from $CITY - 1 vote

Votes:Agathoclea

Option 1 received 56.5% of valid votes, option 2 26.1%, option 3 13.0%, option 4 4.3%.

The most obvious misconception may be that (Wikipedia:Straw polls:)"Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do". Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg. "and again I remind everyone that accusations of sockpuppetry are baseless. All alleged sockpuppets were excluded from the the vote count given in the summary" If you seriously believe that Ak47K (in connection to Molobo and Space Cadet), and Anatopism and KonradWallenrod (in connection to Logologist) are genuine, Balcer, then have a look at their contributions. Also, I don't think that the opposition to reducing the question of Copernicus's nationality to him being fully Polish would be impressed that - after the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard was mobilised, which as usual had the result of the "electorate"'s being mainly of Polish nationality - it mainly voted for "Polish nationality". Sciurinæ 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you can't just call anybody who disagrees with you a sockpuppet. There are procedures on Wikipedia designed to deal with these types of situations. Take your concerns there. Balcer 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling anybody who disagrees with me a sock puppet. And I'm disappointed at the ineffectiveness of these "procedures" you propose (if you mean CheckUser; just some vote razzias aided not only by IP checks but developer ones and a whole new generation of sock or meatpuppets would be deterred) and finally, to me, "neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community."(Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#.22Meatpuppets.22) If you like to criticise the sceptic outlook I stated on the pwn-ed "vote", I just added the point of view which Calgacus well-described by suspecting the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard of also being "a network for Poles who wish to sway votes and decision in their favor". After three "invitations" to the article and furthermore a call to pay attention to it, the subsequent en bloc voting can be seen as a confirmation. Sciurinæ 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are conveniently forgetting that this vote was also prominently advertised on the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, so the mirror version of your argument would be claiming the existence of a "network for Germans who wish to sway votes and decision in their favour". I personally think nationality noticeboards can be problematic, but they do exist for many nationalities and are a commonly accepted part of Wikipedia. Balcer 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the duration, consider guideline 4 from Wikipedia:Straw polls:

A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner.

So it is simply not the case that all straw polls are open ended. Rather, there is emphasis that everyone interested should be given a chance to express their opinion. When the summary was created, all the interested users seemed to have cast their vote (as no new votes were being recorded). Anyway, the archive page with the poll is still there, so anybody can still express their opinion. Balcer 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: People should not edit the archived poll, but rather express their opinion here. About the poll: I think it was sufficiently widely advertised (it still is on the German-speaking noticeboard), but many people are either (a) tired of the topic or (b) don't really care. I would personally prefer the Wrong Version over the Truth in this case (note: my expertise does not suffice to answer the question) and leave editing of this article to people interested in Copernicus, not to experts on the status of Royal Prussia, Torun, Frombork, Warmia etc., and so I didn't vote. I see no problem in accepting the vote, and also no problem in starting a new poll about this in six months and then accepting the result of that poll, whatever it may be. Kusma (討論) 14:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, since you read Wikipedia:Straw polls, I hope you didn't ignore how it should be enforced ("A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.") and point 3 ("Surveys should not be used for the purposes of "fact finding."). Not only was the poll seen as an enforcement, which dear Molobo confirmed when he wrote "you enforce Gdańsk vote I enforce Kopernik vote"[2], but also can it be seen as fact finding. That his nationality is disputable, vague and divisive alone should make you doubt whether the summary of the dispute "Copernicus=Polish" would solve it and constitute a new fact. It is not Wikipedia's aim to decide whether for example God is a fictional or non-fictional being - only unassailable facts should be presented, like God is "believed by the majority [1] [2] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence." When the professor interviewed by the Guardian wrote not too long ago that the only thing known for certain is that Copernicus was European, then you simply cannot put on historian airs and state disputable facts as truths. Have you ever read The Reasoning behind NPOV? Read it (again). The only reasonable option is thus to either leave a statement out when it doubt, or represent all views fairly at the cost of some space, but not use the "vote" as the basis for new waves of imposing the view you share like (like at Frombork) or a launch of cleverly veild but nevertheless agitative calls to arms and harassment against Matthead or me in the PWN. Sciurinæ 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I am not responsible for any actions by Molobo. When I wrote the vote summary, I prominently inserted the note that the vote is nonbinding. However, polls are not entirely meaningless either. If a given option receives only 25% of the votes, the users pushing that option should at least pause and rethink their position. Unfortunately, we have seen nothing of the kind.

As for me mentioning you on the Polish noticeboard, that was in reaction to Matthead and you fighting revert wars with comments like (no backdoor Polish POV here). Surely editors making numerous edits and reverts in that spirit can be mentioned on that noticeboard (where else?). Balcer 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think it unreasonable to send messages of votes into the depth of where people are possibly biased on that subject. Why the Polish forum and not the Chinese? Because Chinese people are more influenced by bias there? It does not even really matter that also the relatively new German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board was notified - it only had the result of most Poles voting for "Polish" and most German votes were split in the other options. Secondly, the mere number of voters for Polish doesn't impress me at all. Not only did I feel some months that the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard was already far larger than any other nationality board, but also are the voters' stated reasons of more importance, if not sole. If an owner of a forum creates a wikipage for its forum and invites the forum's users to create an account and engage in the page's vote for deletion, I wouldn't be impressed at the outcome similarly. Maybe it would be better for the users of either option in this vote to rethink their positions, rather than dogmatically tell the other side to do so. "Surely editors making numerous edits and reverts in that spirit can be mentioned on that noticeboard (where else?)" Yup, in the Republican party's noticeboard we should ask to "look at the contributions" of a Democrat who supposedly wants to eliminate "Republican POV". So much for incitement and exploiting national bias. Just as wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox, such boards are not a place for demagogy. Sciurinæ 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured, if you start to comment your edits as "reverting Chinese POV", I will immediately mention it on the Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board. Now please, surely you must understand that if you make statements like "revert <given group> POV" in your edit commentaries, that is potentially insulting to the members of <given group>. I would advise you to keep that in mind in the future. Balcer 20:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any such statements but don't see the maliciousness of them, either. For example, it should not be stated that Iraq is in a state of civil war just like it shouldn't be stated that it is is not. Wikipedia mustn't state anything controversial as fact. Honestly, read Wikipedia:Neutrality again, and then choose if it should redirect to Majority view or Britannica. Same with What is Enlightenment?. What we should state are the significant point point of views, not which is the "godly truth". If they cannot be stated in the lead because it would look clumsy, well, leave the nationality question out. Copernicus is not famous for being Polish, norPolish-German, nor European, nor anything but what he did for the world. Sciurinæ 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If they cannot be stated in the lead because it would look clumsy, well, leave the nationality question out I see no reason why should we leave his nationality out.No scholary argument has been given. It is sad to see that some people are still influenced by German nationalist propaganda from XIX century which tried to erase all mention of Polish achievements. In fact Kopernik is known worldwide as Polish astronomer and Wikipedia should reflect this. No besides well known views of Matthead and Sciurinæ who work with great effort to "remove Polish POV" every day, can we finally get some scholary source denying he was Polish ? --Molobo 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please note, that in the poll above,

are confirmed sockpuppets [3]. The outcome of the vote may change based on this information -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus, born in Thorn, historically known as Prussian Mathematician

Portraits of Copernicus with inscriptions Canon of Warmia, Prussian Mathematician, Thorn in Prussia etc

Thorn in Culmerland in Prussia, map from 16th century

Thorn/Thorun Nicolaus Copernicus' City of Birth:

Book on Nicolaus Copernicus with Bio

Salem Press, 2005

Editor Christina J. Moose

Great Lives from History The Renaissance & Early Modern Era

Nicolaus Copernicus Bio

by William Urban [4]

Stanford University on Nicolaus Copernicus

Online search 2006 Kopernikus deutscher Astronom und Mathematiker (German astronomer and mathematician)

Hallmark International UK Famous Germans Nicolaus Copernicus

MG 3/22/2006

Neutrality and factual accuracy

May I ask, for what reason there are now these two templates in top of the article? I think we agree that the majority of the article is of high quality. We have dispute about the best version in the lead (concerning one ore two words) and perhaps there are some disagreements about the "nationality subsection". The factual accuracy was not really doubted for the most of the article - but this is the impression the templates evoke. I think their position is completely disproportionate. I would propose that the one who inserted it reverts it (wasn't that you Balcer?). And if it is considered necessary he shall shift the templates to the nationality section.--Dagox 11:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the leads of articles do have some importance. After all that is what the whole poll just conducted was about, and 23 people considered the issue important enough to cast their vote. Despite the fact that about 75% of those polled expressed preference for mentioning Copernicus' nationality in the lead in one form or another, it was removed by the efforts of a few persistent users. Actually, when I attached the tags, the lead then contained absolutely no information about Copernicus' origin, nationality, or even places where he lived and worked. In my opinion, if a small bunch of users push a version that is against the preference of three quarters of people interested in the article, that article cannot be considered neutral or factually accurate (if one omits vital information, one introduces inaccuracy).

Let the tags stay for a while, until the controversy cools off and some compromise can be worked out. Balcer 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits and whatnot

Some general comments:

1. Why are we citing sources in the opening paragraph?
2. Why are we citing encyclopedias as sources?

There's solid evidence that Copernicus was born in Toruń (Thorn), which was then part of Chełmno Land (Kulmerland)) and is now part of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship in northern Poland, so why don't we just say that?

Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was an astronomer who is remembered for providing the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. He was born in Toruń (Thorn), which was then part of Chełmno Land (Kulmerland)) and is now part of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship in northern Poland.

What's the point of bickering endlessly about whether we say he was Polish or German in the introduction when at that time the modern states of Poland and Germany did not exist? People interested in working out issues of nationality can read the section "Historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality" and then go to the source documents (note: not encyclopedias!) but this is not an instititute for primary research and we should not try to decide such issues, whether by voting or not. We should just say what can be said for a fact in the introduction and move on. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should Copernicus be singled out as a man of no nationality? Consider just two examples: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, both rough contemporaries of Copernicus, described in the leads as Danish and German astronomers respectively. Are you in favour of removing any mention of nationality from the lead of those articles as well?

Furthermore, why would you want to list obscure local jurisdictions in the lead? Surely most sources first state which country a given person was born in, not in which province of that country. Balcer 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for encyclopedia references, they were mostly added to counter the accusations that the "Polish astronomer" version is just "Polish nationalist POV pushing". Obviously Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia are not written by Polish nationalists. Balcer 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm asking that he be "singled out". It's simply that, owing to the circumstances of his birth, there is considerable debate about his nationality. I'm trying to focus on the job we have in this encyclopedia, and it seems to me that it isn't to assign nationality to each and every person we write about, but to report and summarise the facts by reference to primary and secondary sources. We have a lengthy section in the body of the article outlining the complexities of the question of Copernicus' nationality; we cannot magic away the complexities by artificially pronouncing an answer (whether by poll or by reference to other encyclopedias--themselves secondary or tertiary sources) in the introduction.

The encyclopedia references do not belong in the article. They cannot be used to establish facts. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point me to a specific Wikipedia guideline that would support this claim? After all, we have whole articles which are taken verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (the one that is in public domain). Surely you are not suggesting that only primary documents can be cited.

As for the controversy, somehow two major English language encyclopedias do not consider the issue controversial enough to avoid mentioning Copernicus' nationality in the leads of their articles. I wonder why you do. Balcer 02:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the controversy, just because two encyclopedias are ignorant of the controversy, it does not mean that they are decisive. Wikipedia is not about evaluating facts and draw a conclusion which the reader should take at face value. Your argument is a pure interpretation, or do you have a source that they do not consider the issue controversial enough? Sciurinæ 02:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If two major encyclopedias are ignorant of a controversy, maybe it is not such a big controversy as you would like to believe. Balcer 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh use of signed articles from major encyclopedias, that have references, is recommended by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it goes on: "Be warned that most unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers with little expertise and must be used with caution."

Since there are expert sources we can direct readers to on this matter I don't know why we are citing encyclopedia articles at all.

By the way since there seemed to be an incipient edit war I thought I'd better protect the article for a few hours to let everybody cool off. I'll unprotect later today (or ask someone else to do it if you can't wait). --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the guideline. To quote it: When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources. There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, .... So, it seems to me Wikipedia encourages the use of reputable encyclopedias as references. It follows that we can definitely cite them as sources. Of course, if better sources are found, they can also be added to the list of references. Balcer 13:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly deprecate the indiscriminate citation of entries in other encyclopedias, whether reputable or not. As the part of the guideline that you did not quote made clear, the encyclopedias are sometimes a source of signed entries by experts in the field. Only insofar as such a work is the work of that expert is it advisable to cite the encyclopedia entry at all. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not quote the other part of the guideline because you quoted it already, so I did not want to repeat the same text. I am well aware that not all encyclopedia entries are guaranteed to be accurate. Still, I think it is reasonable to assume that Encyclopedia Britannica probably got someone competent to write its entry on one of the most important scientists in human history. Unfortunately, I do not have a paper copy of EB within reach, so I cannot tell who was the author.

Again, other references are welcome. Unfortunately, in this whole revert war few people bothered to put in properly cited references so far (there are only 4, and all of these have been put in by me, if I recall correctly). Please feel free to add more! Balcer 04:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the article, only seeking to find a way to reduce friction between the contributors. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources about the controversy

"However just as there was no German state prior to 1871, ideas about which area constituted Germany varied over the centuries, particularly as there were no natural geographical boundaries, especially in the east. Accordingly, it remains a matter of dispute to this day whether the astronomer Copernicus should be regarded as a German or a Pole. Given the geographical and ethnic uncertainties, it is small wonder that the greatest German poet, Goethe, spoke of his inability to 'find' the country Germany." -From Understanding Contemporary Germany by K Stuart Parkes comment by User:SK6

This is a book about the history of Germany, and it mentions Copernicus in passing, in one sentence of its introduction. Anyway, those who claim there is a dispute about Copernicus: any dispute has to have at least two sides. So, could you please cite modern, English language references that would argue the viewpoint that Copernicus was German? I have not come across any published recently. Balcer 13:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a book about the history of Germany and Copernicus is in the introduction. comment by User:SK6

It is a general book which mentions Copernicus in passing, in only one of its sentences. In provides no evidence or citations for its claim, and so in our context is almost useless. If we want to prominently claim that there is a dispute whether Copernicus was German or Polish, we should very simply quote a recent scholarly work which argues the case that he was a German. Balcer 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We have very good evidence concerning where Copernicus lived in various periods in his life, and in which countries these places were located, so there is no geographical uncertainty as far as Copernicus is concerned. Besides, it sounds like a weasel term and should be avoided. Balcer 13:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Balcer!

The whole discussion seems to be rewound. Arguments concerning the historical debate can be found in the archiv [5].

There was a debate, when nationalism arose in the 19th century untill at least 1945. The scientific achievements in the Copernicus research of this period are considerable and still appreciated although chauvinism was present and has to be taken into account when the respective publications are used. No historian will doubt that there was also a scientific debate concerning Copernicus' nationality.

After 1945 it has become more and more unpopular to insist in German national affairs - no surprise after the German war crimes and the Holocaust. However, in the scientific area (perhaps not all but) several very reputed historians solved the problem in a different way: They considered it as a mere anachronistic topic evoked by national vanity and felt it was of minor importance. So they avoided explicit attribuation of Copericus to a nationality and they just mention in their books the historical facts like his citizenship, the (indeed complex) relation of Warmia to the Polish king and Teutonic order, or what is known about his language skills etc. Some examples:

Edward Rosen, major source of the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia [6].
Owen Gingerich, Havard University, received Polish government's Order of Merit (1981), [7]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [8]

You may not be convinced. However, you can't claim that there hasn't been a debate or that all reputed historians and books agree with your opinion. It is not even clear, why your POV should be considered superior to the Rosen's or Gingerichs's: it is neither more neutral nor scientifically more evident. I see apart from the two Encyclopediae no references to your position. In this respect the recent state of the lead is not in agreement with the wikipedia policy:

"Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus."

That's why I still object your position, like Tony Sidaway, Durova, FocalPoint and others. --Dagox 15:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dagox,

Thanks for a lengthy explanation. As I said, our article at this point lacks good references and citations addressing the nationality issue and how it is handled by modern historians. Feel free to add more, and incorporate the above discussion into the appropriate section. I reverted a few times today because the reference given to prove that a dispute about Copernicus and his nationality exists today was, quite simply, completely inadequate. It is just a random book spit out by Google Book Search, which is about the history of modern Germany, and mentions Copernicus only in one sentence of its introduction. Besides, as you just explained, the point is not that there is a dispute, but that some writers try to avoid the issue as much as possible.

Anyway, here is my take on all this. Of course I can very well understand the argument that in Copernicus' time nationality was something very different from what it is today, and I respect scholars who choose to avoid the dispute by simply sidelining it. However, this is Wikipedia, and the general standard seems to be that scientific figures from the period have their nationality prominently mentioned in the first sentence (see Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler). What started this revert war in the first place were attempts by some people to very systematically remove any mention of possible association of Copernicus with Poland. That obviously got me and some other editors steamed up. I believe that the version which won the most votes in the poll is actually the most neutral, as in the lead it follows the practice of major English language encyclopedias (hence hopefully avoiding charges of nationalist POV pushing) and then the space is left in the paragraph just below the lead to fully explain the issue. Can we at least agree on this basic framework? Balcer 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out, what I consider as the most neutral solution, and why I do. Copernicus is at least in one respect a different case, as his citizenship, ethnicity and other possible contributions to his wide-sense nationality don't coincide in such a clear way as for Brahe or Kepler - which essentially leads to disputes. Hence I think it is appropriate to leave the question completely in a subsection. That's my personal proposal, but as the article changes quite quickly at the moment, I will not edit the main page. I regret that there seems to be an ongoing edit-war.--Dagox 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/PTJ/b/b58_031-035.pdf

From BULLETIN DE LA SOCIÉTÉ POLONAISE DE LINGUISTIQUE, fasc. LVIII, 2002

Natomiast w XIX wieku Niemcy za-częli twierdzić, że Kopernik był Niemcem, i trwało to do roku 1945. Ale po II wojnie światowej zaszła pewna zmiana. W lectorium głównym Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej przejrzałem wszystkie encyklopedie i okazało się, że w niemal wszystkich encyklo-pediach, od Encyclopedia Americana i Encyclopaedia Britannica poczynając, a na encyklopediach włoskich skończywszy, jest napisane, że Kopernik był Polakiem. Pod tym względem wyjątek stanowią jedynie encyklopedie niemieckie (Der große Herderz r. 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon z r. 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez r. 1990), a mianowicie w nich narodowość Kopernika została przemilczana. Tak więc po II wojnie światowej Niemcy nie twierdzą już, że Kopernik był Niemcem, ale albo jego narodowość przemilczają, albo powiadają, że był Europejczykiem.

Translation: However in XIX century Germans started to claim Kopernik was a German, and took till 1945.After II WW a certain change happened. In the main reading room of Jagiellon University, I went through all encyclopedia's and it turned out that in almost all encyclopedia's, starting from Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and ending on Italian encyclopedia's is written that Kopernik was a Pole. The only exception's are German encyclopedias (Der große Herderz 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez 1990), and mainly in the fact that nationality of Kopernik was overlooked. So after WW2 Germans no longer try to claim Kopernik was a German, but avoid mentioning his nationality, or try to say that he was European. --Molobo 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Posted before. Its discussion can be found here and here. Sciurinæ 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nicolaus Copernicus was born in 1473 at Thorn in West Prussia, of a Polish father and a German mother." [9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SK6 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 March 2006 UTC (UTC)

Factual Nicolaus Copernicus Bio by William Urban

Urban states facts only.

To become a citizen of Thorn, a Hanse city, a person had to be 'of German tongue' meaning German language speaker. To hold office in Prussia, as Copernicus did, one had to be a Prussian.

True - but Prussian _did not mean German_. Germans from outside Prussia were treated as foreigners, while Poles born in Prussia were perfectly acceptable as Prussians. Szopen 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike William Urban, who stays with the facts, a large number of other people 'interpret' the facts from 500 years ago by adding their own POV of today and thus we get this current interpretation, that 'Copernicus was Polish', despite centuries of scientist identifying him correctly as Prussian Mathematician of German nation or Canon of Warmia [10] etc.

Again, German natio in Bologna was nto declaration of nationality, but student corporation. All Polish students belonged to German nation at that time. Get over it. Szopen 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

MG 3/18/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.39.36 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Copernicus was from Thorn (now Tirun) in Polish Prussia. There has existed throughout modern times an unseemly and pointless squabble as to his nationality, even among historians who should know better. The notion of nationality was quite different in the Renaissance than it is today; Copernicus spoke German as his native language, but owned allegiance to the King of Poland. While Bruno here refers to Copernicus as a German, he participated in 1583 in a famous debate on the Copernican theory at Oxford." [11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SK6 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2006 UTC (UTC)

Protected again

Oh the nationality thing has blown up again, so I've protected. Please be good chaps and sort it out amicably. --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

heretic question

Poland was moved westward by germany and russia foce over time. So there must be some polish celebraties which have been born in an area which is now belorus or ukraine, lets make them all russian nationality than, becaus the area is now no longer polish. Please this is a heretic question and nobody should do it for real. --Stone 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus wasn't born in the area which is NOW Poland, but in the area which was part of Polish kingdom at time of this birth, in the time where nationality meant something else than today. So what's your point? Because the situation would be somehow comparable if you would call Polish celebrities born during Poland's partition, about which we haev no clear info how did they considered themselves. Szopen 12:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As I red the discussion it was part of Prussia, but if it was a part of polish kingdom, than the polish scientist would be a atribute which would fit. The one german parent could be mentioned like that the are he was coming from had german language (than the question might be what was his language).--Stone 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Borders of states are not the solely decisive factor in whether something/somebody is German or Polish. The following paragraph is from Polonophobia (the paragraph wasn't written by Molobo)

After an April 30, 2004 CTV News news report referred to "the Polish camp in Treblinka", the Polish embassy lodged a complaint with CTV. Robert Hurst of CTV, however, contended that the expression, "Polish death camps," is common usage in news organizations, including those in the United States, and is not misleading, and declined to issue a correction.[14] The Polish Ambassador to Ottawa then complained to the National Specialty Services Panel of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which ruled against CTV. It did not accept Hurst's arguments, stating that "“Polish” - similarly to such adjectives as “English”, “French” and “German” – had connotations that clearly extended beyond geographic context. Its use with reference to Nazi extermination camps was misleading and improper". CTV broadcast the decision during prime time.

Sciurinæ 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If I hear such discussions, the only solution is: Go where he is buried, dig him out and ask him!--Stone 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that the subject of the dispute is too small a matter and criticise the polemic, but it's quite another thing to find an acceptable solution. How long has the article been subject to edit wars and discussion? Since 20 November 2001. Some weeks ago, the washington post wrote this article, and I fail to see the "fact" in it that the question of his nationality has been solved. Sciurinæ 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is so important than make him an marsian, I think he looks much like one.

Sometimes haveing fun is more impotant, because if you always fight you get old, weary, angry, sarcastic and you miss your life! Polish kingdom makes him polish for me.--Stone 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're free to draw your own conclusions, state your conclusions as your conclusions, free even to (over)simplify matters.

It is impossible to suggest a "Let's agree to differ" with everyone proclaiming the question of his nationality is senseless but solved in favour of their view in the end. I'm only impressed at how many actually read through the policy NPOV. On its page you can find the answer as to why it hasn't been solved. Avoiding constant disputes: "The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." Sciurinæ 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sciurinae, it has been suggested to call him Polish-German astronom, Polish astronom of German ethnicity etc. No solution lasted for longer than few hours. Szopen 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I realize that maybe no solution will ever be possible, given the basic limitations of Wikipedia. Even if we were to reach an agreement, a few weeks from now a new user would roll in and insert his own POV, starting the cycle all over again.

Maybe the best solution is just to have NPOV:nationality tag permanently attached.

Still, could we at least agree that Copernicus' nationality should be mentioned briefly in the lead, one way or another? Then we could discuss a compromise on how that should be formulated. Obviously, those who insist on removing all mention of nationality from the lead are not working towards any compromise (they insist their viewpoint be adopted 100%). About 75% of participants in the poll were in favour of mentioning the nationality issue one way or another. Balcer 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree because for you his nationality obviously means to say he's a Polish astronomer. That's not a fact and that's what the controversy is all about and that's what causes the disagreement. You call those who don't want to mention one nationality "are not working towards any compromise" and "insist their viewpoint be adopted 100%". For me it's just the other way round. Not mentioning the nationality is not only working towards compromise, it's the option if we don't want to compromise the NPOV. And those who want to exclusively assert a nationality are those who want to have "their viewpoint be adopted 100%". But it's a good stratgey to say that the other's side compromise is their 100% viewpoint -- that would make a new compromise a compromise between your view and the others' compromise: it shifts the POV to you, doesn't it? In other words, you abuse the others' willingness to compromise and accuse them they're unwilling to compromise. Sciurinæ 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No nationality is not no solution

I've briefly checked the version history and noticed that any attribution of nationality results in revert wars, from 2001 on, but also a lack of attribution. Still it's not the same thing. The German-language Wikipedia finished the dispute about his nationality by just leaving the attribution out. Now, you will probably think that it's logical because the number of Germans certainly outweigh that of Poles in it. Tirid Tirid posted a link to Ludwig van Beethoven, apparently as argument for his view. No matter whether you see similiarities in the question of nationality, both Austrians and Germans speak German and one could wonder how they solved the dispute in the German-language wiki. In the article there is no attribution of nationality. I mean, why not? Francis of Assisi isn't attributed, either. Einstein's article in the German wiki is featured and solved it the same way. Both the Guardian's and the Washington Post's article simply left Copernicus's nationality out, too, and fairly characterised the dispute. So did the website of Das Erste, http://www.deutsche-und-polen.de a source so little pro-German that even Molobo based his "article" Selbstschutz on it. As for Britannica, I'm not sure whether they're really aware of a dispute. The 120,000 articles they've written were surely not written by a team of 1,000,000 historians reading 10,000,000 books all in all. With their factual accuracy being little more accurate than Wikipedia it doesn't seem to me to be infallible, and not even a former editor-in-chief of Britannica believes in Wikipedia's reliability. ;-) And just because the Duden is *only* a major scholary source in the German-language sphere, while we allegedly needed an English source for the English wikipedia, doesn't mean that Copernicus is Polish when one travels to the USA and suddenly German in German-speaking countries. It is patently obvious that his nationality is not uncontroversial. And that's where the policy NPOV is decisive - not another weapon in an edit war but the lady justice, so to speak, the policy which - according to Wikipedia's founder - "is absolute and non-negotiable". The problem of the proper adjective in the lead is the same as a proper category, because just like we cannot write essays in the Category space, we cannot do that in the lead section, either. Are you beginning to understand why the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization reads "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." ? As for a solution, Wikipedia:POV pushing is probably right: "A major failing of Wikipedia all along has been the haphazard or lackadaisical enforcement of the neutrality policy. The result is that a climate exists where it is easier for POV pushers to win, than for the rest of the community to stop them. No solution to this problem is known at this time." But giving in to fatalism certainly is the worst. Sciurinæ 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC) http://www.deutsche-und-polen.de a source so little pro-German that even Molobo based his "article" [[Selbstschutz] Don't lie. Added a link from it as proof for a statement. It is patently obvious that his nationality is not uncontroversial Please present a source that claim it is controversal for modern scholars. --Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really important whether you based the entire article or only parts of the article on that source? It remains a fact that you relied on this source and that this source is modern and claims this issue controversial. Sciurinæ 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Passing comment on nationality dispute

I don't expect this comment to survive in the article itself, so I'm putting it here as well. I'm sure it is not new, but my comment on this nationality dispute (even though the current section on it is interesting and well-written) is that it distracts from the main point of the article - ie. what Copernicus is famous for. He is not famous for having his nationality disputed several centuries later by people who really should know better. I've summed this up with the following: "Placing a historical figure in a modern context is not always helpful. It is more important to place Copernicus in his historical and scientific context." - the nationality "conflict" should be a footnote at most, with links to pages on Polish and German nationalism, if those exist. Carcharoth 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

its a stupid discussion his mothers name is watzenrode, thats not really a polish name. his father is unclear and he was born in a, back then and now again polish city. So he got a german mother and was of polish nationality cant we just leave it with that?--Tresckow 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead paragraph

As someone passing by, I do not want to get involved in a long Polish-German dispute. I know what that can be like from reading some of the Gdansk/Danzig disputes. But two things caught my eye, and I hope those more involved with this will step back and consider these points in the hope that they can go some way to resolving this dispute (and indeed how to resolve similar disputes):

(1) The template warning about the dispute is very offputting. When I saw another dispute template further down the page, I thought the first one was redundant. An edit summary reverting my removal of the main template said that the problem is actually with the lead paragraph. So I had a look at that. Big problems, because essential biographical information is missing.

(2) The main problem with the lead paragraph at the moment is that is misses one of the key things you need to answer when writing the lead paragraph for a biography of someone. It doesn't say where he was born and lived and died. It gives his name (who), his birth and death dates (when), what he did and is famous for (what), why he is famous (why). Of the standard who/what/where/when/why/how questions, it does not answer "how", which is not that important in this context, but is is absolutely unforgivable that it doesn't answer the "where" question. Where was he born, where did he live, and where did he die? Some styles of biographical articles put birth and death places in the birth/death brackets, so that would help. but this style doesn't seem to have been adopted by Wikipedia. I would suggest adding sentences to the lead paragraphs stating clearly and succintly the towns in which Copernicus was born, lived and died, and the nations in which those towns were located. Let people follow the links or read the rest of the article to find out the flux in the populations/boundaries/allegiances in that era at that time.

Based on the above, I suggest changing the lead paragraph to read as follows:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, part of the Hanseatic League and the Prussian Confederation, in Royal Prussia, then an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of his age. He was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist, physician, classical scholar, governor, administrator, diplomat, economist and soldier. Amid his extensive responsibilities, he treated astronomy as an avocation. However, his formulation of how the sun rather than the earth is at the center of the universe is considered one of the most important scientific hypotheses in history. It came to mark the starting point of modern astronomy and, in turn, of modern science, encouraging young astronomers, scientists and scholars to take a more skeptical attitude toward established dogma."

Does this seem acceptable? Carcharoth 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start, and might lead to a workable compromise. One problem here might be that Royal Prussia is mentioned a bit too prominently. After all, it was just one of the provinces of the Kingdom of Poland, joined to it by a union. It was not an independent entity. To illustrate the point with an example, consider that we do not stress that Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen spent most of his working life in Bavaria, but just say that he lived in Germany, even though Bavaria was a highly autonomous province of Germany, which even had its own formally separate army. Furthermore, Prussian Confederation need not be mentioned at all, since that entity was no longer relevant at the time of Copernicus' birth as it was just an association formed during the Thirteen Years War. Similarly, Hanseatic League is also irrelevant here as it was just an economic association, already declining in importance at the time. Here is my proposal for the first paragraph of the lead:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Poland, where he died in 1543. Balcer 23:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit seems to be very neutral Balcer, the only problem people might find with it is the Frombork, Poland part. Since it has already been established earlier in the paragraph that Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland here is my suggestion (just a tiny change at the bottom):

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543. Philip Gronowski 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live with this version, if it will finally end the revert wars. It does pass over the question of his nationality in silence, but hopefully the readers will see the relevant section if they are interested in the issue. Balcer 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose and can live with the following addition according to the well beloved Talk:Gdansk/Vote: in the lead the name 'Thorn' should be mentioned and 'Frauenburg' (which was the name of the city until 1945). So my suggestion is:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frauenburg (Frombork), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543. Sciurinæ 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can accept including the German names also as needed. But why do you want to add "East Prussia" and "West Prussia" to the place descriptions? These geographical concepts appeared much later. Royal Prussia is just fine. Furthermore, the fact that you removed just about all mention of Poland in your lead version seems to indicate that you are in no mood for any compromise at all. I can't say I am much surprised. Balcer 02:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Royal Prussia or East Prussia, I don't care. I was relying on your sources (Britannica and Bartleby) that wrote Frauenburg was part of East Prussia. I guess I shouldn't have trusted them. BTW, it's not true that I removed all mention of Poland. Sciurinæ 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There was almost no mention of Poland in the version of your comment to which I was replying. In that version, Poland was only mentioned alongside Italy as the place where Copernicus was educated. Afterwards, after reading my comment, you made some modifications, in this diff, which made the lead more reasonable. Note that what you are doing here is confusing the readers. If you write a comment, and then someone posts a reply to it, you should not go back changing your original comment and making the reply seem out of place. Your statement BTW, it's not true that I removed all mention of Poland is misleading. Balcer 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While Sciurinæ's editing of his comment has made the discussion a bit harder to follow (and he should have added an "edited my proposal" after your comment to make this clearer), he actually moved towards compromise. His and your version are now very close, and if one of them (or their arithmetic mean :-)) could be accepted by the community, a great step forward would be made. Could we please concentrate on the text to be put into the article instead of editor's behavior? Kusma (討論) 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can almost accept this, but would still prefer to see some rewording. The expression Frauenburg (Frombork) should be changed to Frombork (Frauenburg). Double linking is not necessary and the modern name ought to come first (plus the material under Frauenburg link is totally irrelevant to Copernicus article). The specification that the province was "autonomous" is not necessary, as that was definitely not an official expression of the time, and readers interested in Royal Prussia and its status within the Kingdom of Poland can consult relevant articles. Balcer 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So you could accept this here?

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork (Frauenburg), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

Whether it is Frauenburg (Frombork) or Frombork (Frauenburg) is a Gdansk/Danzig type question. Using the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), it is Frombork (Frauenburg) by default unless Frauenburg is a widely accepted historical English name for the city. But this would have to be discussed at Talk:Frombork and is a small matter compared to the question of using "an astronomer" instead of "a Polish astronomer". Kusma (討論) 22:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Frombork was also not the "official expression of the time" so why should it replace Frauenburg? Britannica and Bartleby also use 'Frauenburg' instead of 'Frombork'. The city's name is also relevant to the astronomer because, according to the Frombork article, Copernicus "is said to have jokingly called Frauenburg also "Weiberstadt" (wives town) or "Ginnepolis" (Ginne meaning woman in Old Prussian)". I also believe that "autonomous" is relevant for the context because in Copernicus's lifetime, Royal Prussia was an atonomous province and only in 1569 it became a common province losing its privileges. I would agree with using Torun (Thorn) and Frauenburg (Frombork) throughout the article as a balance. Sciurinæ 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Using Torun (Thorn) and Frauenburg (Frombork) just creates confusion for Wikipedia readers. If they know that Torun is the modern name, will they then infer that Frauenburg is also (the order is the same after all)? We should adopt the same convention in the same paragraph. As for the autonomous province, fine, I can live with that too. For me it is not a relevant piece of information, but if someone considers it vitally important, let it be included. Finally, since User:Sciurinæ has rejected Encyclopedia Britannica as a valid source, seeing him turn around and try to use it to justify his claims is somewhat amusing. Say, why don't we just follow Encyclopedia Britannica, use the form "Polish Astronomer" in the first sentence, and be done with it. Anyway, the precise order of names in given languages is something set by Wikipedia guidelines, so we are not bound to copy what Britannica uses. On the other hand, the fact that Britannica prominently calls Copernicus a Polish astronomer in its first sentence does give us some idea of what mainstream sources say about the issue. Balcer 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please distinguish between fact- and name-finding. I was of course using Britannica because you have referred to it for uncountable times which does not allow you to object it, so it's not amusing at all that I was citing it. I believe that Toruń and Frauenburg are the predominating names and they form some kind of balance. I don't think that would lead to confusion. Sciurinæ 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just go with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), as suggested by Kusma. This is the best way to achieve neutrality. Frombork/Frauenburg is a small town with about 2000 inhabitants, and it has never been much bigger than that, so I don't believe there is a widely accepted English name for it. Hence Frombork (Frauenburg) is the form consistent with Wikipedia standards. Balcer 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if we apply that rule, Frauenburg (Frombork) would follow. According to the definition for the historical name, the name is used in Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta. However, google scholar fails, yet Frauenburg still has the majority but not the 2/3 majority. But we needn't apply that rule, because the Gdansk/Vote already determines that Frauenburg (Frombork) should be used. I would compromise that we use Frauenburg (Frombork) and Torun (Thorn). Sciurinæ 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How does Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply here? It sets some very specific rules for Gdansk, but those do not apply to Frombork. It has some rules for biographies of clearly Polish and clearly German persons, but those cannot apply here, obviously. It enforces double naming, but it says nothing about the order in which names should be given. It just says both names should be there, which in our proposals they will be. In short, Talk:Gdansk/Vote is of little relevance to our problem. Let's use the modern name first, as that way we will have a consistent standard and avoid confusion. It is totally unfair to readers to mix conventions, as most of them are presumably unfamiliar with Polish-German disputes and will just assume that the first name is the modern, most commonly used name, and thus be misled. Balcer 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, these arguements won't take us nowhere. I'd agree with "mix conventions" and I believe that it is also fair to readers because these are the predominating names in the historical context. Sciurinæ 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Why don't we let Kusma decide this point? Hopefully he can make a neutral, objective determination here. I am willing to accept this decision. Balcer 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the fact that he was Polish. So far no serious scholary source has been presented arguing that he is German rather then (as accepted by overwhelming majority of scientific world) Polish. --Molobo 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Copernicus was German. In fact, in my opinion the whole point of the new proposal is to find a formulation that makes it clear that he was born and worked in Poland (which seems to be an accepted fact) but stops short of using "Polish astronomer" (which is disputed because it has slightly different implications, e.g. the question of his ethnicity). The following proposal makes no mention of Germany at all:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork (Frauenburg), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

As Balcer has accepted this and Sciurinæ's version is different only by the ordering of two names (which is a different question from the question of a compromise on "Polish" and would be rather WP:LAME to edit war about), I think this is a reasonable proposal, especially since it moves the nationality dispute out of the opening paragraph. Kusma (討論) 01:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Balcer 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't mention that one of the brightest minds of our civilisation was Polish astronomer. Certainly irritation of few Wikiusers because of their personal views can't be taken as guidance. Please provide scholary sources claiming he isn't Polish astronomer as Brittanica states it. --Molobo 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a suggestion how the perpetual edit warring on this page should be stopped, so that one of the brightest minds of our civilisation can have a stable article not made ugly by {{NPOV}} tags and page protection. Tons of sources (also supporting a different point of view) have been provided, which did not help. Kusma (討論) 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would prefer to have the formulation "Polish astronomer" in the article lead as well. Still, the current proposal clearly indicates that Copernicus spent practically his entire life in Poland, which I think is adequate to stress his Polish connection. I have frequently stated that the ethnicity of Copernicus is really an open question (and to me rather irrelevant). Still, if some people believe that calling Copernicus Polish implies certainty that he was 100% ethnically Polish (do such people even exist?) and hence might not be entirely correct, I can at least understand their point of view. BTW, as someone who had such a close connection to Poland, he can definitely be included in the Category:Polish astronomers etc., as that category is broader then just people who are 100%, undisputably Polish in all respects. This compromise does not preclude that since, quite clearly, it is solely about the lead of the Copernicus article, and not anything else.

This compromise is not perfect, but I prefer it to endless revert wars. If in the future stronger consensus develops for calling Copernicus Polish, the article will change naturally as appropriate. Balcer 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would prefer to have the formulation "Polish astronomer" in the article lead as well. What stops us from naming him so ? Personal views of few users with no sources ?

This compromise is not perfect, but I prefer it to endless revert war The solution is simple. The article should be written based on current respected knowledge and then protected from vandals for a period of some time. Unless somebody gives evidence he is German or of German ethnic background I see no reason to deny he was Polish just because a couple of users(including ones frequently deleting info on Nazi atrocities) are bothered that Wiki doesn't reckognise German nationalistic ideology from XIX century as guidance. --Molobo 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As you are probably well aware, there is ample evidence that his mother was ethnic German and hardly any evidence that his father was an ethnic Pole. The proposal above is similar to replacing "Polish" (an ambiguous term, meaning "from Poland" or "of Polish ethnicity") by "from Poland", to avoid claiming an ethnicity. Kusma (討論) 03:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry can you present evidence that his mother was ethnic German ? Anyway remembering Forster(the scientists who believed Poles are animals), he was purely Scotish but I don't remember that you tried to erase the claim that he is German. Why is Kopernik different ?

--Molobo 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I believe your statement is based on German perception of nationality based on flawed concept of blood rather then earth. That means that nationality is determined by flawed perception of attributing ethnic background to flawed perceptions of birth, geneology rather then by cultural sphere of the person.

--Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, your solution is not simple at all! How would you propose to do this? This is just not how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia is created by users, not by administrators who lock articles to impose the "correct" version. If you don't accept this basic principle of Wikipedia, you should seriously reconsider your participation in the project. Please propose another solution, as your current proposal is simly not practical. The continuation of this revert war is just a waste of everyone's time, and it discourages people from improving the article. It must stop.Balcer 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Balcer but it would be similar action if somebody would come with belief Earth is flat and tried to erase information that Earth is round(well geoid but you know what I mean) from every article mentioning Earth's shape. Such a person couldn't expect that his wishes will be heard seriously. Why should people listening to high tales of German nationalism from XIX century be heard ? Should we next add information that Poles are of lower culture then Germans ? Or that Poznań is eternal German city ? Once we take the first step towards accepting simple bullying like happened here by two or three determined POV pushers(and pushers against accepted definitions in scholary world) we shall make a dangerous precedense. The fact that somebody vandalises the page on regular basis shouldn't make us accept vandalism. I of course have nothing against mentioning that Germans tried to portay Kopernik as German in XIX century as a result of Pan-Germanism ideology and German conflict with Poles. This is an acceptable information in line with historical accuracy. --Molobo 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So your solution is the continuation of the revert war. That's too bad. I see that I am not going to convince you. Anyway, to ensure that this long discussion was not a complete waste of everyone's time, I have inserted the compromise sentence about places connected with Copernicus into the article. I hope no one has any objection to that. Balcer 13:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So your solution is the continuation of the revert war. No, my proposition is to guard against vandalism. I assure you Balcer that I am patient and vigiliant enough to protect the article. Molobo 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even you cannot be online 24 hours a day, and you are limited by the 3RR rule anyway. It's better to have a less-than-perfect version which is stable, than endless revert war which makes the article comletely useless to anybody. Balcer 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I can be vigiliant.

--Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please understand that mediating persons don't like being asked to take sides. I'm sick of discussing compromises if the instant that a new agreement is reached, the former is shaken. I thought I had made it clear that NPOV demands conflicting and significant viewpoints to be characterised or left out, not asserted. Now you're insisting on calling him Polish again. The dispute is in its fifth year and more and more people call for a binding solution. I increasingly think it is serious enough to have it referred to ArbCom. Sciurinæ 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to make this compromise more acceptable to Molobo, I simply said that this discussion is only about the lead of this particular article, and does not concern the issue of which Wikipedia categories Copernicus should be placed in etc. Categories are quite broad. Please check just how many categories Albert Einstein is in, for example.

I am also beginning to think that some external intervention by ArbCom might be necessary, as the issue is becoming serious. Copernicus is one of the greatest scientists in history, and the fact that Wikipedia cannot produce a stable article about him is really an indictment of the whole Wikipedia modus operandi, as it currently exists. I can easily imagine the press jumping on this article as another proof that Wikipedia is unreliable as a reference (continuing the tradition of John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy etc). To avoid this problem, we might even need some kind of a "Gdansk-vote" solution, where the exact formulation for Copernicus' nationality is decided and then ruthlessly enforced throughout Wikipedia. Balcer 13:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We might. However, it is rather unusual to have such rulings for a single issue, and the ArbCom does not usually take sides in content disputes. I would like to see a situation where an accepted compromise is protected in a way that Polish editors revert changes that make Copernicus more Polish and German editors revert changes that make Copernicus more German, which would show a lot more good will. I'm probably dreaming, though. Still, it would be nice if you could remove the extra "Polish" in the lead yourself to show that you intend to follow up your acceptance of the solution proposed here with actions. Kusma (討論) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Polish editors revert changes that make Copernicus more Polish Excuse me but what are you talking about ? Should soon Polish editors be asked to spread ideas of Hitler why attacked Poland in September 1939 article. This is an bizarre and strange idea. Copernicus is listed as Polish by every major encyclopedia respected in scholary word including Britannica and I see no scholary work of modern age, and of scholary value claiming he is German. Please stop this, it absurd that a couple of vandals filled with ideas from XIX century German nationalist propaganda are destroying this article. Molobo 07:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, the current compromise version of the lead does not say Copernicus was German, it simply does not include an explicit mention that he was Polish. Note the subtle difference. Balcer 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's done. Let's see whether this compromise can hold up, even for a few hours. Balcer 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it only lasted 5 hours and 57 minutes. I reverted it back to the original version and can only hope that lasts longer... Philip Gronowski 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, why can't you simply call him Prussian? or state that he was born in contemporary Poland, but that his nationality is disputed?

Nicolaus Copernicus Place of Birth, Work, Death

Once again I am reminding readers of the historical classifications [12] of Nicolaus Copernicus' place of birth, Thorn (Torun) where he worked and where he died Frauenburg (Frombork) Thorn in Prussia Frauenburg in Prussia, that is what the country was called at his time as a number of maps of that time state. A portrait with Thorn, Royal Prussia (as can be seen on this list) made by a French person in 1720 shows the distinction of Royal and Ducal Prussia made be the 1700's. This distinction seems to have started under Kurfürst August II, the Strong of Saxony, also king of Poland and the Kurfürst of Brandenburg-Prussia, both Prince-Electors of German Reich (Holy Roman Empire. All maps before that time simply show Prussia for all parts involved. Never does it show during his time or centuries after that Copernicus was born in Poland or that he worked and died in Poland. He did attend Krakow, which was 'Polish', but at his time was also a Hanseatic city and had a large number if not majority German people, also Italians, building up the city, establishing businesses etc.

Copernicus did live and work in Frauenburg, Ermland/Warmia. This was an exempt Prince-Bishopric. That is why Copernicus on portraits is classified as Canon of Warmia in Prussia. He was not classified as Canon of Poland.

If for centuries Copernicus or any other person for that matter, was known as and classified as and he himself called his homeland Prussia, then neither Wikipedia nore Enc. Britannica nore anyone else has the right to 'declassify' him, change his identity to something else. MG 3/26/2006

It was suggested above to make it explicit in the lead paragraph that he was from Royal Prussia. (The word "Prussia" is too ambiguous to be used here). Do you have a problem with this? Kusma (討論) 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The country was called Royal Prussia, and it was a part of Poland. Why can't you accept that? Let me illustrate the issue with a quick example. Arnold Schwarzenegger is primarily known in the world as the governor of California and as an actor who achieved celebrity in Hollywood, California. Does this mean that in his bio we should only mention California as the place he lived and worked, and not mention that he is an American as well, and lives in the United States of America? Still, imagine some future Wikipedian posting a collection of Scharzenegger portraits describing him as "Governor of California" and using that to prove that "he was never considered an American"! That hypothetical Wikipedian could also take all state maps of California which do not mention United States prominently and thus "prove" that California was not a part of the US. That would be similar to what MG appears to be doing now.

Copernicus lived in Royal Prussia, so we mention it. Royal Prussia was a province in union in Poland, so we mention that also. Where is the difficulty? Why the insistence that the higher level political unit to which Royal Prussia belonged must be passed over in silence? Balcer 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing Äpfel and Orange County. Was Schwarzenegger born in the USA or in California? Does California have e.g. its own currency, which is different from the US-Dollar, and has Schwarzenegger written a report on this separate currency system? No? - These attempts at making Copernicus a Pole are boring. Is Poland so desperately short of scientists that even dead ones need to be imported? --Matthead 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Royal Prussia part of Polish kingdom or not? If not, then why? Use XV century standards when replying, not XX. By XX century standards half of Poland was "independent". Szopen 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Currency issue is irrelevant, many cities had their own currency while at present some currencies are used by multiple countries. It does not make Prussia not a part of Poland. And please note that the current introduction is not saying that Copernicus was a Pole. Just calm down a bit. I haven't followed the whole controversy, but I am finding it very hard to believe that an introduction that is so neutral has to carry an NPOV tag. Piet 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, as the compromise seems to be sticking. Balcer 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be too much to hope for the other non-NPOV tag to go? The one in the section that describes the debate and the history and reasons for it. I would say that that section comes over as well-balanced, but lacking in some points of English grammar and style. So a clean-up tag there would be more appropriate than a NPOV tag. Carcharoth 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Poland so desperately short of scientists that even dead ones need to be imported? Not really, but it seems Germany was when it tried to portay Kopernik as a German in XIX century. --Molobo 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This polish jealousy of german scientists really is ridiculous. It is only due to german politness and diplomacy such talk can go on.

Probably. After all, "German" is a symbol for politeness and diplomacy. Space Cadet 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

- As far as I have understood, he probably spoke German in school, and had German as his mother thounge language (as his mother was German). I would call him German or Prussian, born in contemporary Poland. People should accept contemporary people in the area he was born in as Polish, and the area as Polish, but that doesn't imply that one should change history, and say that it always has been that way.

Warning note for editors added to top of page

I've added a warning note to the top of the page for any editors that wander past and think about changing the two introductory paragraphs. This warning is only visible to editors, and is intended to prevent a well-intentioned edit starting a new edit war. I think that something should also be placed at the top of this talk page for editors to see (the warning note directs them to the talk page). The note at the top of the talk page should summarise this compromise, if it holds up. Carcharoth 12:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Long URLs disrupt reading of comparisons in edit history

This is certainly not the proper place to discuss formatting issues, but I encounter the problem mainly here. The extremely looooong URLs to Google books cause very wide screens when comparing two versions of the edit history, making this feature very hard to use. I consider this annoying and could not find a remedy with browser settings or Wiki preferences. Using tinyURL would be helpful, but this site is spam-blocked. Could this be solved somehow within Wikipedia by people who know how? --Matthead 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You should ask at WP:VPT, where some people who actually know what they're talking about can answer this question. TinyURL obviously has to be blocked if there is a spamlist. I agree that it would be nice to have a way to linebreak long URLs. Google Books URLs should also be replaced or at least accompanied by a proper citation of author and title including the ISBN etc. Kusma (討論) 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma (討論) pointed my to a work-around for this issue: a script adds scroll bars to the diff view and keeps the size fixed. One has to copy the code from the box at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix diff width into a new sub-page of your own userpage named User:YourOwnUsername/monobook.js, save and reload the page. Should work fine, does so for me, too. --Matthead 07:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Carnage of the page

Please stop the carnage of the page. It's a pity to see Balcer following on Molobo's footsteps to WP:AN3. Please cool off and draw in your horns. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This comment by Ghirlandajo looks, to me at least, like a personal attack against me, but I will not remove it (let it shine). Let me just note that Ghirlandajo's request to block me for supposedly breaking the 3RR rule received no support at all from the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Balcer. Except for Ghirlandajo, everyone who cared to comment on the issue supported my actions. Balcer 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was unnecessary to report it but not because it wasn't a 3RR violation (I think it was one because removing allegedly trolling is no valid reason to exceed the revert limit) but because there was agreement in the end by both parties involved that the comment was superflous, and because the issue was already day-ed. Understandably you feel annoyed for being reported. At first the anon felt annoyed at the seemingly current polemics and posted the sarcasm, which annoyed you and others, which lead you and Kusma to remove the comment repeatedly, which, in turn, annoyed the anon. Then you were reported for 3RR, which annoyed you, and mud-slinging against the reporter, Ghirlandajo, who had probably been annoyed by s.th. else, ensued. Everyone muddled into conflict, and there's no real reason to continue. I figure my playing know-all annoys everybody, as well. Let's just all cool off and draw in our horns, please, shall we. Sciurinæ 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not annoyed at all by just being reported, but I was annoyed at the mean-spirited, unfair and inaccurate comment that Ghirlandajo put in as justification for his report, which really seemed like a personal attack against me ("The guy is so much given to revert warring ..." etc). I think a possible source of this behavior by Ghirlandajo were our recent exchanges at Talk:Russophobia, so I pointed other editors there so they could get a full picture. Anyway, that's enough about this. This whole section should be removed because it contributes nothing to the article (but I will not do it myself). Balcer 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On philosophical impliciation

The current article says:

Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma: it could be inferred that there was no need of an entity (God) that granted a soul, power and life to the World and to human beings — science could explain everything that was attributed to Him.

Copernicanism, however, also opened a way to immanence, the view that a divine force, or a divine being, pervades all things that exist — a view that has since been developed further in modern philosophy. Immanentism also leads to subjectivism: to the theory that it is perception that creates reality, that there is no underlying reality that exists independent of perception. Thus some argue that Copernicanism demolished the foundations of medieval science and metaphysics.

If there is anyone who wishes to defend these claims, please do so now. If not, I will delete them. They seem utter nonsense to me (and I do have a background in philosophy and history of science). Victor Gijsbers 08:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Utter nonsense. It seems to me that, now that the nationality disputes have died down, this article could stand some improvement. Balcer 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree - I don't see how that could be 'inferred' simply from Copernicus' theory. I don't, however, have the philisophical knowledge to edit this. Shall I just delete these two paragraphs, or is there someone who wants to edit them? Story Weaver 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No original research; Wikipedia is not a debate forum

The dispute over Copernicus's nationality has no valid place in this article. Material like this is meant for revisinism academic papers, not an online encyclopedia. The references attached to this article list Copernicus as a "Polish astonomer", whether he, in fact, was or not has no bearing here. The article should reflect the references. 65.10.36.239 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but we had a long debate about this, and this was not accepted as a concensus view. Please check this talk page and its archives. Also, please get a Wikipedia login as that makes communication easier. Balcer 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy is right in stating that "Wikipedia is not a debate forum": An anon editor who 1) ignores the accepted results of years(!) of discussion and 2) is threatening to start a revert war ("All else will be readily reverted.") is not worth discussing with. --Matthead 12:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

endless IP Vandalism

This page, like too many others, is vandalized by anonymous IPs too often. I'm tired of reverting childish nonsense, or even watching the article, which is luckily taken care of by many editors. This means though that a few IPdiots are allowed to waste the time of many productive people. Is that what Wikipedia was intended for? Admins, please semiprotect permanently. --Matthead 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we don't do that. This page is vandalized only once or twice per day, and well-watched by many editors who revert vandalism. On this page, I still believe it is better to just revert, warn and eventually block the few vandals we have than to disallow all anonymous editing (quite a lot of it is usually decent). One of the few articles that is (almost) permanently semiprotected is George W. Bush, and that is far more visible and gets vandalized (even in its semiprotetced state) a lot more often per day than this article gets vandalized per week. Kusma (討論) 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

One IPdiot user made Cop. a proponent of good oldfashioned geocentricism [13], and another introduced a word that is not in my dictionary [14]. Judging from the edits that followed, these changes would have stayed undetected if it wasn't for my repair. The article's state, both regarding NPOV and science, is advanced and non-controversional enough that anonymous people with one or two edits won't improve it much. It's a waste of time to have it show up on my watchlist constantly. If Wikipedia does not take care about protecting its content, why should I? Admins, please semiprotect permanently. --Matthead 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Language fine tuning

I strongly encourage english native speakers and writers to look over this article and correct the endless grammatical errors and mistakes built in mostly by german and polish writers. Most of the people "reading" (actually more revert editing) this article are coming from Germany and Poland, and they don't even notice how much garbage it contains. This practice leads to the disgraceful effect that people for whom it was written mainly – and whom the english wikipedia addresses first – as those living in England, USA and The Commonwealth would not take it seriously. Matcreg 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Before equating the linguistic proficiency of editors from Germany with those from Poland, especially in the light of your recent "before/in front of" edit, you should have taken a look at this edit and then at that "mistakes built in" edit. Also, you might want to consider a further attempt to language fine-tuning within the caption in question, regarding "Seated statue". --Matthead 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthead, your examples confirm what I wrote: the Copernicus article is a mess from a linguistic point of view. I didn't make any comparision between the editing parties as that of Germans or Poles at all. In fact I noticed that german discussions partners write a much poorer english than their polish colleagues, at least on the discussion page here. But I didn't want to accuse anybody personally of contributing mistakes to the article and it is known that most of the contributors on the Copernicus article come from Germany and Poland, and they cannot under any circumstances have the skills of english native speakers (even if they believe they do). If I wrote about contributors with not-so-perfect-english skills I meant myself too. So don't put your nose too high, Matthead, and don't split the hairs. Matcreg 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing again?

Here we are again ... Matcreg altered even a quote from a German book to match his intentions. If he wants to "adjust City names" and "use the same names throughout the article", he should understand beforehand that there is no "ó" and no "ń" in the English alphabet - just to start with. Als long as Cologne, Munich and Nuremberg are written without ö and ü in the English Wikipedia, funny polish letters should not get allowed to spread too much either. --Matthead 13:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Matcreg wants to delete Frauenburg from Wikipedia to serve his POV on Copernicus.

Also, he is looking for support, first in english, and then in polish only. --Matthead 14:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional "nationalistic blabber" by Matcreg in Talk:Frauenburg, as well as an additional rather desperate "No, no! Pay attention ...". --Matthead 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

In a mirror image of this, some Poles attempted to establish an exclusive claim to Copernicus and to downplay his possible German ethnic origin. A banknote with an image of Copernicus was issued, and Polish Senate called him on 12th of June 2003 an "exceptional Pole". This an unsourced claim. Pilsudski with Lithuanian origins is also an exceptional Pole. The banknote or statement of Polish Senate speak nothing about claims of exclusivity or ethnic background neither is there any source that they are "mirror image" of German nationalism. --Molobo 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What's more Pilsudski even described himself at few occasiosn as Lithuanian, and even once said something in sense (can't remember exact wording) that Poland is good only when ruled by Lithuanians :) Szopen 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, if you want to include a statement like "all major encyclopedia's of the world list Copernicus as Polish" use English sources or translate others. Sciurinæ 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

"Nicolaus Copernicus was born on 19 February 1473, the youngest of four children of Nicolaus Copernicus, Sr., a well-to-do merchant who had moved to Torun from Cracow, and Barbara Watzenrode, the daughter of a leading merchant family in Torun. The city, on the Vistula River, was an important inland port in the Hanseatic League. Fighting between the Order of the Teutonic Knights and the Prussian Union in alliance with the Kingdom of Poland ended in 1466, and West Prussia, which including Torun, was ceded to Poland. Thus the child of a German family was a subject of the Polish crown." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

How about the last sentence? "Thus the child of a German family was a subject of the Polish crown." Can't we agree on that? Kenaz9 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is incorrect. Kopernik was from Polish family since his father was a Pole. Besides who says they viewed themselfs as Germans ? You are going to determine this by genetics ? Being Pole or Germans has more to do with political and cultural affiliation not language or genetics. It is clear that Kopernik had nothing to do with any German state and openly stood by Polish interests and culture. Claims that he was German by some "blood" right seem very strange. Thankfully we are past that stage of civilisation and such ideologies I hope. --Molobo 20:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of using genetics and at the same time bringing his father on to "proof" his "polishness"??? You are kidding, right? His mother was German, he wrote in Latin and German and grew up in an environment which was only shortly before ceded to Poland...yes I would think this indicates much higher leaning to German culture than to Poland. You yourself talk endlessly about the dangers of Germanization...this here is a case of wishful "Polonization" if you ask me. Just because some borders are changed that doesn't change someones cultural heritage or leanings. YOU of all people should know that!

His mother was German By whad definition ? Being born in Germany, being follower of German culture, declaring herself German or some genetic tests were made on her that identified as having gene-marks characteristic of German population ? he wrote in Latin and German And ? Many Poles did so as they were universal languages in that part of Europe. Language didn't define nationality in those days. this here is a case of wishful "Polonization" if you ask me. Well, at least one Polish conspiracy against Germans seems succesfull then, since all major encyclopedias list him as Pole ;) Just because some borders are changed that doesn't change someones cultural heritage And Kopernik had nothing to do with German culture. You accuse me of using genetics and at the same time bringing his father on to "proof" his "polishness"?? It's generally viewed that the father defines the nationality of the child. and grew up in an environment which was only shortly before ceded to Poland And ? Millions of Poles lived outside Polish state for centuries. --Molobo 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As did Germans! Since we both know that borders changed between Germany and Poland serveral times, that both ethnic groups were minorities in both countries, that his parents were polish/german, that he wrote in German...I would really like to see some more evidence for his "polishness". What makes you so sure? Kenaz9 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC) As did Germans! Germans ? If I recall right the concept of "Germans" is rather new. Actually wasn't Germany formed only in XIX century, and the name German meant one of several ethnic groups of the diverse Germanic people ? What makes you so sure? The fact that nobody outside Germany considers him German ? --Molobo 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall right the concept of "Germans" is rather new. Yes, only more than 2000 years...The nation of Poland got destroyed several time in their history, does it mean the Poles just vanished??? What makes you so sure? The fact that nobody outside Germany considers him German ? Not long before I presented you an article from stanford as a compromise. It was very easy to find. I'm quite sure I would find more if I look. I say you have neither evidence for his "polishness" nor claims that "everybody" out of Germany considers him polish...you just wish it to be so!

Yes, only more than 2000 years.. German state existed for 2000 years ? I think you are confusing Germans with Germanic people. The two aren't the same. I'm quite sure I would find more if I look. Such research was already done. All major encyclopedias confirm that he is a Pole. --Molobo 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't play dumb Molobo! You as a Pole should know like a German does that nationhood isn't necessary for an ethnic heritage. And I now dispute your claim that EVERY encyclopedia "confirms" that Kopernikus is a Pole. Which evidence do they use? Why don't YOU use those "evidence"? Kenaz9 20:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Please present serious arguments. --Molobo 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your's! Some (not all) foreign encyclopedias can't be your best argument.... Kenaz9 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Atempts to claim he was German

I changed the line to be as per the source. The source says Nazis wanted him to be portayed as German. Not to "portay him as exlucisvely German" or "discount his connections with Poles" etc. So I just changed the sentence to be more clear. --Molobo 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good examples

I must say that I am very disturbed by examples showing how German historians and politicians still hang on to German nationalist ideology and can't abandon the idea that Kopernik should be denied his Polish identity. --Molobo 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it Germans show much more willingness to SHARE Kopernikus with Poland as vice versa. We can live with a compromise, you seemingly can't! Kenaz9 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC) As I see it Germans show much more willingness to SHARE Kopernikus with Poland as vice versa How can somebody share what isn't his ?as vice versaThis argument is absurd. You are saying "Oh I took your car, I don't want you to take it back, but look I can share it with you". Please be serious. --Molobo 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL...somehow Poland "took" the car here, didn't she? As the territory where Kopernikus' family lived got ceded to Poland?

Quote: "Johannes Rau: "Poles and Germans", he said, "have a common history of great scientists: Today we no longer perceive Copernicus, Arthur Schopenhauer and Gabriel Fahrenheit as the property of one nation but as representatives of one transnational culture."

THAT is a good example! Kenaz9 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it supports your vision ? This is a sad example of how German politicians are unwilling to let go of German nationalistic myth of Kopernik being German.

LOL...somehow Poland "took" the car here, didn't she? Nope it were German nationalists and Nazis that seeded the myth that Kopernik was German due to their uwillingess to accept that he was a Pole. Sadly the myth found a fertile ground in German society as seen above. Maybe it will take German politicians another 60 years to move from "ok he had something to do with Poland" to "Ok we no longer support nationalitic German myths and he was a Pole". --Molobo 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Johannes Rau was a German nationalist? Because then the article might need a correction. It reads "In his acceptance speech after his election he claimed "A patriot I will be." because "a patriot is someone who loves his fatherland, a nationalist is someone who despises the fatherlands of the others"." Sciurinæ 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Johannes Rau was a German nationalist?

Where do you believe I say so ? Please point me to it. Address your concerns regarding this German on his specific page not here. --Molobo 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be because of that?:

Quote: "Johannes Rau: "Poles and Germans", he said, "have a common history of great scientists: Today we no longer perceive Copernicus, Arthur Schopenhauer and Gabriel Fahrenheit as the property of one nation but as representatives of one transnational culture."

...This is a sad example of how German politicians are unwilling to let go of German nationalistic myth of Kopernik being German.

Right now YOU Molobo are showing the caricature of a dumb nationalist, not the Germans! And you still haven't brought forth any clear evidence of Kopernikus' polishness...Kenaz9 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using personal attacks. --Molobo 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then please bring some facts or at least show your open mind and agree to a compromise! Kenaz9 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Then please bring some facts Every time I bring some facts they are deleted. --Molobo 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents

I have avoided this article for quite some time, but I braved it today, and I found it much better then expected. Still, there are some issues to be addressed. First and most important, this article could use many more inline citations, and as for the most controversial, nationality section, every fact should be referenced (now very few are!). Second, it would be interesting to see what is the authors of the text used currently as a reference have to say about his nationality. For what it is worth, I did a quick search on Google Print and here are the results: Copernicus+"Polish astronomer"=279 books (please note I give number of books, not hits in the books); Copernicus+"German astronomer"=151 books. It would appear that two third sources seem to declare his nationality as Polish, but this is a very brief search and I am not suggesting here that we should use this as a basis for declaring him Polish - it is just another piece of info for your discussion. Third, I'd like to ask if there would be any objections to adding his German and Polish names to lead? Fourth, there are some rather weaselish unreferenced phrases near the end of the nationality section, and I'd suggest that unless they can be referenced we remove them. They are: 1 "Today he is often tagged as Polish, which might simply be based on the location of his birthplace in then and present-day Poland." Which might be... sais who? Some Wikipedian speculation? Same for the following para: "Therefore, in a modern context, Copernicus may be viewed as an ethnical German". Therefore suggest some logical conclusion, but I see little evidence for it. Unless we can provide some (academic, preferably) references for those statements, I'd really suggest we remove them, they seem to me to be immflamatory bait for POV pushers to play with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to adding his German and Polish names to the lead. He used the Latin name in his works, and he his known by this name. Extra names just worsen the nationality mess - for example, he spend significant time in Italy, so adding "Dottore Nicolo Copernico" would be justified, too. Beside, the so-called German name Nikolaus Kopernikus just makes sure that Germans pronounce the C as K (which is undisputed I think), not as S or Z (with Cicero being a famous example of disputed pronounciation, in Germany at least). The "real" German name would probably be Köppernig anyway, as used for the village until WW2. But Germans do use the adjusted Latin name, not a "more German" version. As the present day Polish name Mikołaj is concerned, I very much doubt that both the leading M nor the "l strike" was used by Copernicus himself, nor even in his time. I have no precise idea when and why these changes happened, though. Unless proven wrong, I want to point out that present day Polish spelling with accents does not necessarily apply to the 15th or 16th century names of persons and cities. Insisting on the use of present day Polish (or German) names in a centuries-old context is too POV to me, unless proven as correct. Town names are a mess anyway, see Gdanzig Gdilemma, Wielbark culture etc. --Matthead 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First, remember to sign yourself. Second please no original research --Molobo 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Hmmmm....let's see...if asked if Poles who found themselves because of political reasons at a time in Prussia, would they see themselves as German? Would today Poles do? I doubt it. So can't we agree that a family who lived in Prussia but found themselves later because of political reasons under Polish government still stayed German? Ask yourself!

Would a Prussian in Kopernik's time declare himself a German ? Anyway please provide citation where Kopernik declares himself German.

--Molobo 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC) So can't we agree that a family who lived in Prussia but found themselves later because of political reasons under Polish government still stayed German? 30% of Prussian population was Polish.

"Today he is often tagged as Polish, on the location of his birthplace in then and present-day Poland."

That seems correct. Kenaz9 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope that is incorrect. He is described as Polish because he declared himself the loyal subject of Poland, had nothing to do with Germany, and fought on the side of Poland, and in his age the declaration of loyalty towards the ruler defined if somebody viewed himself as Polish, and dedicated his works to Polish king. What you are trying to do is to apply XIX century ideology of nations to him. In his time nationality was defined differently and he certainly made no occasion to declare himself as German, but several ones when he declared himself as Pole by swearing loyalty to Polish king, fighting against Teutonic Knights etc. --Molobo 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Germans fighting Germans sadly has happened until 1866, with the 1813 Battle of Leipzig being one of the worse examples, with Germans (obliged to) fighting along with France and Poland, or Russia. No sane person would insist that this made them French, Polish or Russian. The concept of the Teutonic Order, which was challenged in 15th century by the Prussian Confed, was very outdated in 16th century anyway, and the Grandmaster restructured it. Even the Polish king supported that, making Albert the Duke of a protestant Ducal Prussia. If refusing to open the doors of Allenstein (sorry, not Olstyn) for Teutonic Knights makes Copernicus a Pole, what makes giving a whole duchy to the German TO Grandmaster then the Polish King? The Teutonic King of a Lutheran Poland? Copernicus was loyal to Roman Catholic church and the bishopric of Warmia, yet he anyway worked for and with Albert in Protestant Ducal Prussia. Not much is know about him working with or in undisputedly Polish persons or areas. --Matthead 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Allenstein (sorry, not Olstyn) Sorry but it's Olsztyn. Oh and the fact that he sweared an oath to Polish king, dedicated works for him, fought for Poland, was called son of Poland by German rulers etc. Germans fighting Germans sadly has happened until 1866 And they defined themselfs as Germans or did they use other terms ? --Molobo 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC) What makes giving a whole duchy to the German TO Grandmaster then the Polish King?

Copernicus was loyal to Roman Catholic church and the bishopric of Warmia There was no country of bishopric of Warmia, it was a region dominated by Teutonic Knights who did as they pleased with it, and the fact that Kopernik resisted them in de fact their own realm shows that prefered Poland. What makes giving a whole duchy to the German TO Grandmaster then the Polish King? The rightfull ruler over Prussia. --Molobo 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well...was it you or one of your compatriots who remarked that German National Lukas Podolski is of Polish heritage? And oh boy will he fight for Germany in the coming World Cup! :) Kenaz9 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) What are you talking about ? --Molobo 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic German ?

Since when having a Polish father makes somebody a ethnic German ? --Molobo 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would understand the concept of jus sanguinis, remarks as below would not be made, in an attempt to communicate on your level. --Matthead 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes a archaic concept often associated with Nazi and racist views ? [15] At the same time, ethnic, or völkisch (3), nationalism was reinforced by the priority of jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) in German law. [16] His reference to the foreign "invasion" was made in a well-considered text about immigration. France, like many other countries, transmits nationality through jus sanguinis (the law of the blood) to children of French nationals or through jus soli (the law of the soil) to those born in France. The bourgeois republic, though not always for lofty reasons (a low birthrate, the demand for cheap labor), developed a rather open policy on immigration, claiming it was inspired by the universal principles of the French Revolution. The centralism inherited from the revolutionary Jacobins had as its counterpart a great capacity for assimilation; if the Nazis' rule that one grandparent made you a Jew were now applied to foreign origin in France, about a quarter of the French population would have to be treated as alien [17] Notable among these is the Bosnian boy of Episode 5, whose fate is a grim comment on the primacy up until the millennium of jus sanguinis, of German identity determined by bloodlines. His is one of two deaths in the heart of Lorelei territory, and foundering on contemporary rocks results from parochialism and greed, ‘made in Germany’. [18] The German immigration law of 1913 carried the principle of jus san- guinis to its logical conclusion. Germans living abroad and their descen- dants had an automatic and perpetual claim to German citizenship, but people born in Germany who were not of German stock could not become naturalized. In the words of Roger Brubaker, ‘the 1913 law severed citizenship from residence and defined the citizenry more con- sistently as a community of descent’ (Brubaker, 1992: 149, Cesarini and Fulbrook, 1996: 88–105). During the Nazi era the concept of German citizenship became completely racialized when all those whose families had acquired citizenship in earlier times but who could not claim Aryan descent – mostly Jews and Slavs – were stripped of their German nationality

A terrible nationalistic concept as I see. --Molobo 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to a terrible nationalistic Europe, then! "Apart from France, jus sanguinis still is the preferred means of passing on citizenship in many continental European countries." You just proven once more how ignorant you are, and how isolated your views are. --Matthead 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because without a German womb to snuggle into the Polish sperm would still wander around useles? (God now it get's surreal!) *LOL* Kenaz9 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such offensive remarks deserve a place here. --Molobo 22:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent consensus

I think I have only one problem with the recent consensus and it is as follows:

"Therefore, in a modern context, Copernicus may be viewed as an ethnical German that lived and worked in and with the political environment of Poland, but placing a historical figure in a simplified modern context is not always helpful. It should be more important to place Copernicus in his historical and scientific context."

I believe that this version diminishes the posibility of him as a Polish citizen. I agree that Copernicus' true nationality is in debate, but I believe that it is completely acknowledged that he was a citizen of Poland, or at least of Royal Prussia. He swore allegiance to Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. We could also add into the paragraph that he had possible Polish ancestry. Perhaps the following rewording of the paragraph would be suitable:

"Therefore, in a modern context, Copernicus may be viewed as an ethnically German citizen of a province of Poland, with possible Polish ancestry. It should be noted that placing a historical figure in a simplified modern context is not always helpful. It should be more important to place Copernicus in his historical and scientific context."

I am open to any suggestions or criticisms. Thank you. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't an ethnic German, his father was Polish. --Molobo 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but some people don't think so. I am just trying to remain neutral. I will keep my personal opinion private and will edit to a NPOV. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 22:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would simply remove this paragraph. This kind of synthesis should not be done by encyclopedists. Kusma (討論) 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Important publications we don't mention

UNESCO site, interestingly, mentiones one publication of NC: De revolutionibus libri sex, claimed to be C. autobiography from 1520. While the title is not that known, it scores few hundred Google hits, for example it is mentioned here. Just goes to show that we should stop worrying about his nationality and try to expand the article with other content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding I suppose. The last sentence on the Unesco site says its an "autography", not an "autobiography". It's his 1520 manuscript (self written, hence autography) for the "Six books on Revolution" he published in 1543. Just look at the title ending in "Libri VI". Amazon lists a book by Heribert M. Nobis and Bernhard Sticker in which they compare the manuscript and the first printed edition. So, back to nitpicking about nationality: Inherited by George Joachim Rheticus, the manuscript went on an odyssee through Europe and was given from Prague to Cracow in 1956. --Matthead 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Credibility of the source ?

[19]

This isn't a credible source. It was written around XIX/XX century in period when Germany pushed forward propaganda that Kopernik was German(the author died in 1913), I would prefer modern scholary sources. --Molobo 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're free to believe that Robert Stawell Ball was a victim of German nationalistic propaganda. I guess every source you don't like was either amateurish or under such influences... Sciurinæ 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is from XIX or from very early XX century(the author died in 1913). Please provide modern sources.--Molobo 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Witold Mańczak

He is a respected professor with habiliation and member of science councils in Poland I added citation from his publication. I am not however encoureged by behaviour of certain editors and afraid that the statement by this renoknown scholar will be simply deleted. --Molobo 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As I expected user deleted the infomation at once: Witold Mańczak Naród a język, państwo i religia(Nation and language, state and religion)BULLETIN DE LA SOCIÉTÉ POLONAISE DE LINGUISTIQUE Kraków 2002 I went through all encyclopedia's and it turned out that in almost all encyclopedia's, starting from Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and ending on Italian encyclopedia's is written that Kopernik was a Pole. The only exceptions are German encyclopedias (Der große Herderz 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez 1990), and in them nationality of Kopernik was overlooked. So after WW2 Germans no longer try to claim Kopernik was a German, but avoid mentioning his nationality, or try to say that he was European' --Molobo 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Since Witold Mańczak is the leading scholar on such issues in Poland and renoknown professor and no argument was given this deletion seems a simple vandalism. --Molobo 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think that trying to discuss with him (M.) again will change anything, but Piotrus has asked me for my opinion on this and Molobo even tries to exploit my inactivity to imply a refusal or inability to answer [20]. Firstly, have I only "deleted" the sources that Molobo "added", as Molobo wrote continually? No, Molobo's recent edits were no clear additions but disputable changes of many sentences. Secondly, what is the source all about? It's a source Molobo has tried to use since February, posting it for several times (let's hope it's not copyrighted...) and now would like to profit from it in the article. Yesterday, I called it "pseudo-sourced", to which Molobo replied, not by showing it was sourced (well, he knows very well it is not), but to underline how respected the author is, according to Molobo. (when an article is biased, he'll argue that a statement is sourced, and when it is not even sourced, the answer will be that the author is "renown".) Now, as for the author, he's a professor for linguistics, likely more reliable than someone without a title, but the title does not give him credibility as a historian because apparently he's not a historian as such. Experts for history, astronomy or history of science are accaptable, linguistics isn't. So what Molobo calls "renoknown" does not count here. The author wrote 35 pages on the concept of nationality and writes a few sentences on the nationality dispute of Copernicus, which Molobo seems to have translated. The author is not what I've questioned, but the "sourcing". The professor reports that he searched his university library for encyclopedias as to what nationality they attribute to Copernicus and his result, he wrote, was that except for German encyclopedias, every encyclopedia in this library writes that Copernicus was a Pole. He hasn't checked all encyclopedias of the world (maybe he even overlooked some in his university) and his search is four years old, still Molobo writes that "all major encyclopedia's of the world list Copernicus as Polish" and uses the source as undeniable proof. Does the source say so? No, it simply doesn't. One can imagine what "major" in this context means as an unusual weasel term, but the source simply doesn't say so. It is not sourced, it was wrong to pretend it was sourced and wrong to evade the issue by pretending instead that I had only doubted the authority of Mister super professor and the whole POV push agenda it was based on was wrong. That ALL encyclopedias say that he's a Pole is already disproven logically by the source[21]. From these results the author *academically* concludes "So after WW2 Germans no longer try to claim Kopernik was a German, but avoid mentioning his nationality, or try to say that he was European", which is on the amateurish and overgeneralisating side. Actual claims by Germans after WW2 that Copernicus was German should even prove that wrong. Molobo has used a similar logic in his edits: he had tried to change the sourced statement "because of geographical uncertainties, it remains to this day a matter of dispute whether Copernicus was German or Polish." to "There are continuing claims in Germany that because of geographical uncertainties[...]" to make it fit his views. Maybe in some peoples' mind literature and especially encyclopedias are nothing more than a loudspeaker for propaganda. Of course that's not the end of the case's madness. Molobo seems to have concluded that German encyclopedias are not notable enough to be called major ones[22] and thus continued to decrease the quality of his "sourcing", whose undoing dear Molobo regards as "a vandalism". It is a truism that this logic (deletion = vandalism) is inconsistent with the offical definition of "vandalism". "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." So a deletion can be vandalism, just as an addition. We'd rather not stoop so low as to call one another's change "a vandalism" or the other a "relentless editor"[23]. Back to Piotrus' question, altogether I have not removed sourced information, Molobo's version has done just that (he replaced a sourced information with an unsourced information) and added information that seemingly reflect sources when in truth that was not the case, so eventually his version has less sourced informations. Something like that should on no account be rewarded in any way. If I won't reply to Molobo, then it will not be out of shame, of that I can assure you. I may not have enough time or willingness for feeding. Sciurinæ 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this a very long and confusing speach. Could you short it down to few clear points which portay your arguments in rational, emotionless way ? I tried to understand exactely what you meant but I am afraid I am confused. --Molobo 14:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see your both points. What I'd recomment is to remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. The source Molobo used is acceptable, the way he framed his edit is not entirely so. What should be done, in this and similar cases, is to clearly indicate in text that specific Professor X, from University of Y, having done A, B and C, concluded that Z.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Nationalism

I found this summary very fitting:

While the determination of Copernicus' nationality is clearly of great importance to some, others hold that debate at best anachronistic. The attempts by much later generations to impose a modern nationality upon a man whose life belonged to the Late Middle Ages, when the modern geopolitical entities "Germany" and "Samoa" did not even exist and whose contributions to scientific progress should not be overshadowed by the needs of ethnic nationalists.

I really would like to know why you are so against "sharing" as I would call it. There are lot's of reasons to declare him polish, to declare him german, to declare him both or neither. Why won't you agree to a compromise? Are you an "ethnic nationalist" Molobo?

"One can say summarizing, that Copernicus' working language was Latin, his mother tongue was German, his sovereign was Polish and his father tongue was probably Polish. He is undisputedly a Central-European."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/copernicus_nationality

Kenaz9 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I really would like to know why you are so against "sharing" as I would call it Wikipedia isn't a game. We are here to present scholary facts, regardless of one's feelings.

to declare him german I would be happy to learn of at least one rational argument in favour of this.

Are you an "ethnic nationalist" Molobo? Can I know why such a question was directed at me and not the editors who try to delete information about German war crimes, persecution of Poles in Prussia, or information about Hakata or Kulturkampf ? But I assure you that I am not, I am well aware of futility of such ideologies, and history with all of its aspects. As a Pole I am certainly aware of my nations past black episodes as those in Ukraine. But with your curiosity satisfied I hope, can we return to question why scholary sources conflicting with POV of certain editors are deleted ? --Molobo 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was because your edit did more than just add a source, it also put quite a different spin on the interpretation. Kusma (討論) 16:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just note here that absoluteastronomy is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the copernicus nationality pages was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernicus' nationality (second nomination) (aftrer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernicus' nationality).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it came from a mirror of Wiki, I care about the very reasonable summary! What is wrong with that? Why is it so hard to agree to that? Kenaz9 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The summary reads pretty nice, although it should have inline citations for every statement. I am confused however at the above summary sais his father's tongue was Polish, yet our article states that he was 'probably a Germanized Slav'. And as we had agreed that it is important he was a loyal subject of the Polish king, perhaps this should be stressed more in that quote?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which standards are to be used?

Which standards should apply in order to determine if somebody was an X or a Y? Very flexible standards, it seems.

Obviously some insist on a categorization by political structures, which are a matter of change in a typical lifespan (as well as before and after)? Okay, lets see, Marie Curie for example is declared a "Polish chemist" by the current Wiki article, despite no Poland existed decades before and after her birth. Those who want to declare Copernicus a Pole then should first make sure that Curie is declared a Russian. In addition, Copernicus studied in Cracow when that was Polish, which is used to underline his alleged Polishness. Well, Curie also studied there, but following that logic, it should confirm her Austrian identity, as Cracow was Austrian then.

And so far I haven't mentioned "physicienne française d'origine polonaise" yet. So, unless the Wiki article on Curie states her to be Russian-Austrian, a "Polish astronomer" will not happen either.

Off course, "She was ethnic Polish" is also stated in the lead of her Wiki article, making her double Polish apparently, to beat that French citizenship. To bad she did not move to Poland after WW I and/or died and/or was buried there, which would have made her triple, quadruple or quintuple Polish certainly. If only. --Matthead 20:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal views matter little to the article. Maria Skłodowska Curie is regarded as Polish-French scientitst in mainstream history, and that is why it is written so. Wikipedia isn't a ground for historic research but for presenting information. And that Kopernik is seen as Polish rather then German scholar is a mainstream historic view.

--Molobo 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

unless the Wiki article on Curie states her to be Russian-Austrian, a "Polish astronomer" will not happen either.

Why ? Certainly your opinion is of no significance here. Try to find information that she is regarded as such by historians and come back with it, then perhaps you shall have an argument.

--Molobo 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

On that note shouldn't the lead of the Marie Curie article state she was a Polish-French chemist? Currently it states only Polish claim, while she is listed as French in the categories. This discussion is OT here, and should probably be continued on the Talk:Marie Curie.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth do people keep claiming that Copernicus is Polish? No less of an authority than Günter Grass writes that he was a Kashubian in The Tin Drum. The Kashubians are quite distinct from Poles, and yet get no mention in this controversy. --VonWoland 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Economic contributions

Would anyone be able to include some examples of his contributions to economics? Thanks. --Onias 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Comparable Works?

I take issue with a statement that I found on the Copernicus page:

Copernicus' theory is of extraordinary importance in the history of human knowledge. Many authors suggest that only Euclid's geometry, Isaac Newton's physics, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, have exerted a comparable influence on human culture in general and on science in particular.

This is obvious POV, but someone reverted it when I took it out. Where are the references to those "many authors"? Who is to judge which are the top 3? 2 of the 3 are Brits, which seems pretty ridiculous - maybe an indication of a particular bias of the author? I made an alternative, larger list of frequently cited "greatest works", just to show that there is so much more, but I am not pleased with it, and would still prefer to take this out:

Copernicus' theory is of extraordinary importance in the history of human knowledge. Many authors suggest that only Euclid's geometry, Archimedes' discoveries in mathematics and engineering, Galileo Galilei's and Isaac Newton's and Albert Einstein's theories of physics, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, Gregor Mendel's theory of inheritance, Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease, Carl Friedrich Gauss's contributions to mathematics, Sigmund Freud's theory of psychology, and a few others, have exerted a comparable influence on human culture in general and on science in particular. - Science History 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

See my edit as a proposal. I think we should sort by chronology, and limit ourseleves and not stray too far from math/astronomy/cosmology. --Matthead 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is much better than the original, but I still think one should refrain from placing lists of other "greatest scientists" in any scientist's biography, since it's so difficult to avoid POV ... Science History 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A positive suggestion

Hello all. I was involved peripherally in this discussion last year. I haven't looked at the Copernicus entry in a long time, having been distracted from Wiki by personal events. I was prompted to take a look by the piece in this week's New Yorker (7-31-06), entitled "Know it All; Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?" by Stacy Schiff. She cites the Copernicus-nationality debate as an example of "acrimonious (editing) battles," and rightly so.

In my view, the entry as it reads today is admirably complete and properly devoid of ethnic nationalism. As far as not mentioning Copernicus's nationality in the beginning, this seems a reasonable way to avoid further disputes. It would serve the Western reader better in terms of information if Copernicus were introduced as either Polish-German or German-Polish, probably the former. But even the way it is, it's much better than it was in the past.

I see that there have continued to be long and indeed acrimonious debates this year about this relatively minor (but not uninteresting) aspect of Copernicus's life. I think this indicates that some of those taking part (some of whom I recognize from last year) simply enjoy arguing in a nationalistic manner, which must fill some inner need they have to validate their ethnic identities. It's very unfortunate.

The important lesson from Copernicus's ethnic background is that both Poles and Germans lived in this region together for many centuries, and created a civilization. Would that both sides could see the positive aspects of their shared history, rather than focusing exclusively on all the negative aspects.

Why don't all of you get together in Görlitz/Zgorzelec and discuss this theme? Over a few glasses of Bier/piwo? Enjoy.

Sca 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty hard work to get the article to the "current" compromise, focussed on science not nationality, that was more or less accepted by most serious editors, i.e. those with profiles and valuable contributions. It's too bad that Wikipedia Policy still allows all anonymous editors to mess around with content. This article (and may others) needs semi-protection. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since it seems unlikely that those Polish individuals who object to explaining Copernicus's mixed ethnicity ever will accept a version that does, no matter what the argument.

Sca 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sca, why pointing exclusively to Polish individuals?! Szopen 08:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there others who insist that he be identified solely as a Polish astronomer? Sca 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but in the past we had individuals which claimed he had to be identified solely as German astronomer Szopen 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Koper-nik

Just to note, in modern Polish copper is miedz. However, in medieval Polish different words were used, very often borrowings from German. I tend to remember however that the word "Kopr" not "Koper" was used, though I have to check the library Szopen 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

removed this discussion to Talk:

Another theory says that the original ending –nik in Copernicus' name indicates its Polish form, meaning a person who works with copper, as in other names referring to occupation i.e. cukiernik (pastry cook)[24]. The Polish words for copper are: miedz, miedziak. These words were not used for Copernicus at all and one needs to look again at the explanation for the Germanic word copper and the short version of Nikola(u)s -nik or Nick, explained in details in the preceding history of this article.

Copper and Nick references

(from article)

Missing here is earlier information, that the Copernicus family dealt in copper and as did many German burghers at that time it was the custom that families took their trade or the town they lived in as family name. The Low German form of Koppernigk(or Swedish Kopparnickel) correspondent to the Modern High German Kupfernickel or English coppernickel (a copper coin). According to Webster Collegiate dictionary the word Nickel is derived from Nikolaus, Nick, which was used for Devil, Demon, Satan. Spelling -nigk was equal to -nick or br-icg (bridge) in Germanic languages.

The Polish words for copper are: miedz, miedziak. These words were not used for Copernicus at all and one needs to look again at the explanation for the Germanic word copper and the short version of Nikola(u)s -nik or Nick, explained in details in the preceding history of this article.

Letter from Nikolaus Cardinal von Schönberg

In a letter dated Rome, 1 November 1536, the Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus Cardinal von Schönberg asked Copernicus to communicate his ideas more widely and requested a copy for himself:

"Therefore, learned man, without wishing to be inopportune, I beg you most emphatically to communicate your discovery to the learned world, and to send me as soon as possible your theories about the Universe, together with tables and whatever else you have pertaining to the subject."

It has been suggested that this letter may have made Copernicus leery of publication‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, while others have suggested that it indicated that the Church wanted to ensure that his ideas were published‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}.

The "citation needed" status of the last 2 statements in the above text has been in the article for ages. Why don't we remove both phrases, letting the article free from interference of unsourced claims? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Kuhn

It seems to me that the comment in the article about Kuhn's position is not accurate. Basically, the article says that, according to Kuhn, the position advocated by Copernicus was not revolutionary. This position seems to contradict the fact that the shift from Ptolemean astronomy to Copernician astronomy is a canonical example in Kuhn's work of a "scientific revolution". I think that the confusion stems from the fact that Kuhn's position, at least in one sort of reading, advocates that a revolution is mainly driven by sociological aspects rather than sound "scientific" (understood as deductivo-empiricist) reasons. Anyone agree?

If my recollection of Kuhn is accurate, it's more that resistance to new ideas in science has a non-scientific basis, not that new paradigms themselves are necessarily products of culture: a new paradigm emerges on its merits, and a certain percentage of the old paradigm's adherents die off rather than change their minds. Durova 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

I have failed this article, after nearly a month in nomination.

Main, but not only, reason is referencing. There are at least three statements flagged as needing citation; no GA or FA can have even one as far as I'm concerned. But there is also inconsistent reference formatting throughout ... sometimes we have external links, sometimes we don't, and the reference section includes both footnotes and general. This has to be brought in line.

Another big problem is the long discussion of Copernican heliocentrism. It takes up about a third of the article, and really reads like it should be split off into a daughter article with a couple of short grafs and hatnote remaining here. Or shortened into something more manageable.

Third is the bio. It needs to be subdivided further, as other sections are.

It's well-illustrated and comprehensive, but until these changes are made I don't think it should be renominated. Daniel Case 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would consider the image arrangement. In the biograhy section, they alternate right to left, which is ideal for readability as it mirrors the sweep of our eyes. But below, they're all on the right.

Did different people work on different sections? Daniel Case 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You bet! Lot's of people messing around with that fellow, mostly regarding that centuries-old nationality dispute. It was quite hard work to get to a version that was not constantly reverted. It's still vandalized too often, though. As his theory is concerned, it should be discussed in the already existing article on his book.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate maintenance tempaltes to the article. Daniel Case 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Since good article status requires infobox I have added one using only information from the article. Dan D. Ric 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If Good Article status requires an infobox, then something is wrong with the GA criteria. Infoboxes are not universally useful, and there exist several featured articles that are also biographies without an infobox. In fact, of the first 6 I checked, 5 did not have an infobox. Kusma (討論) 13:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, but it certainly can't hurt. That huge portrait was a little distracting. Daniel Case 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I think all infoboxes are very useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Nicolaus Copernicus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to throw gasoline on a fire, but...

I have a biography of Copernicus that clearly states that while at Bologna he joined a German fraternity there, and not a Polish fraternity, though a Polish fraternity did exist. The information is from Six Great Scientists by J.G. Crowther. It says clearly, and I quote: "Students from abroad were registered according to nationality or native language and strictly supervised." and later "Copernicus, who was probably bilingual, speaking both Polish and German with equal fluency, joined the German [fraternity], and his name is found in the register for 1496 as 'Dominus Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn'." Of note, he joined the fraternity which was expressly a law fraternity, but was only a nominal law student at best. Why join a German Language Law Fraternity if a) he had no real interest in law and b) he self-identified as 'Polish'. Also, on the registry, he used his German name (not Polish or Latin) and gave the German name of his hometown. The same book notes that his Father was a Hansa merchant, which was a German trading league. I am still officially neutral on the nationality debate; I am of the opinion that Nicolaus was too: He probably was raised speaking German, was born a subject of the Polish King, and used Latin in his correspondence. He much of his life in Italy, and even in Poland associated with Italians as often as any other nationality. In the late 15th century, the concept of "nation-state" did not exist. You spoke what your parents did, you owed alliegence to the soveriegn of the land you lived on, and the educated conversed in Latin. The point is only important to modern scholars; and probably more important politically than anything else... Still, the information above is NOT part of the article. My question for those of you that pay attention to the article: Is it worth putting in to the section on the debate of his nationality? Its a referenced fact (his joining the German fraternity) that is not part of the article, and may add more depth to it... Any opinions? --Jayron 32 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Polish fraternity existed in Bologna in 1496? What?!? What is the source of this info? AFAIK Polish "natio" was created later, and all Polish students joined "German natio" in XV century. Szopen 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Reply. From Crowther (see above): "In Copernicus' time, there were eighteen 'nations' [fraternities]... including England, France, Germany, and Poland (emphasis mine)" He clearly asserts that the Polish natio existed at the time. Still, I fully assert myself that the issue has been blown all out of proportion in modern times. The current controversy is an artifact of the 20th century Polish/German conflicts and has little to do with how Copernicus thought of himself; which is the only relevent discussion that should be had. This is all about which modern nation gets to "claim" him, and has little bearing on his importance as an historical figure. I brought this fact to light in interest of completeness, not to come down on one side or the other of the debate. I am still neutral-bordering-on-apathetic as to his "official" nationality. Of interesting note, however, is that Crowther does call him a "Pole" several times, for instance noting that "He[Copernicus] was one of the first Poles to master [Ancient Greek]." Is he Polish because he was born a subject of the Polish King or was he German because the language of choice for his family was German? Yes to both. Trying to draw a distinction between the two tells us more about our OWN biases on what it means to be a certain nationality than it does to lend any "truth" to this particular article. --Jayron 32 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a news to me. I Think Polish fraternity in Bologna was established later - i got to check my library on the topic. Szopen 08:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Theory of "Solar System", or "Cosmos"?

The introduction contains these two statements:

"the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system"

"his formulation of how the sun rather than the earth is at the center of the solar system"

I was under the impression that "solar system" refers only to our (local) system, and that his theory was a heliocentric theory of the cosmos (universe), rather than the "solar system", as the article now reads. Did Copernicus consider our star to be the centre for all the other stars? If so, should the article as it stands now be corrected to read "cosmos" rather than "solar system"?

Ethnicity Redux

Book written by a professional academic historian all of you in this war on ethnicity should check out:

Karin Friedrich : The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772

"In this excellent book, Karin Friedrich argues convincingly that early modern Prussians were neither Germans nor Poles...[but] a community of citizens who embraced the constitutional agenda of the multinational [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth." American Historical Review

my .02: Ethnic Germans living in cities like Torun, Elblag, Gdansk, etc. came to see their freedoms best defended by the Polish Monarchy- and saw political incorporation into the Polish state as a haven against the 'oppression' (i.e. taxation) policies of the Teutonic order- this is why they- the Prussian Confederation (German speaking burghers) rebelled against the order and ended up under suzerainty of Poland after the 13 years war (1466). Thus they became ethnic Germans living in the Polish Kingdom. These Germans hundreds of years later would later write texts extolling the virtues of the Polish monarchy and even tried to link the Polish monarchy to the ancient Sarmatians to boost the standing of the Polish monarchy by giving it roots in the ancient world. Why? They were German speaking people who identified with the multi-national Polish political state and would have been proud to say there were Polish citizens (again because it was a monarchy that best defended their mercantile and civic interests). Does owing allegiance to the Polish state make these German speaking peoples Polish or should they be "German", despite their overthrowing their fellow ethnic compatriots control (the Teutonic Knights)?

The German speaking people in the Polish state at this time considered themselves "Prussians" to be distinct from other fellow Germans just as Baltic Germans called themselves "Balts" despite the fact that those ethnic Germans were not linked to the indigenous Prussians or Baltic peoples.. yet they thought of themselves distinct as compared to other Germans.

It is important to note that Poles were not the overwhelming ethnic majority in their own country until the 20th century thanks to trauma inflicted on central Europe by Hitler and Stalin. Likewise, “Germany” in the age of Copernicus, i.e. The Holy Roman Empire contained large populations of non-Germans (Dutch, Czechs, Slovenes, Danes, French, etc), yet were considered subjects of the Holy Roman Empire.

As a historian, I find it alarming to see 19th century chauvinistic nationalism which has brought so much misery to the world is alive and well. Nationalism of then and that today which derives from it just doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny when examining the medieval and early modern world where that kind of nationalism didn’t exist.

Therefore in my humble opinion, Copernicus would most likely say he was "Prussian"- which at this time could mean any sort of mixed ethnicity (Polish, German, ancient Prussian, what have you..) Thanks for reading- RMB; PhD Candidate in History from the Cape —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.27.232 (talk)

Just minor clarification: Prussian confederation was rebellion by German-speaking cities AND Polish-speaking gentry. Prussians were both German-speaking (majority of cities) and POlish-speaking (majority of gentry and peasants). Also, it has been argued that the final destruction of Prussian identity separated from both Poland and Germany was during the partition, when Polish-speaking Prussians become Poles, while German-speaking Prussians became Germans. Szopen 17:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

born name of Copernicus

The article never clearly states that Copernicus was born with the name Mikołaj Kopernik, or that Copernicus is his latinized name. Where can this information be integrated? MaxVeers 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere, unless very solid evidence for this claim is provided, which I doubt can be done. His name(s) has been the matter of lenghty and controversial discussions until a stable compromise was reached. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we can at least assert that he wasn't born with a Latin name. Does anyone dispute this? MaxVeers 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Dear MaxVeers, Please look at older discussions.There have been a lot of facts about Copernicus posted at wikipedia, which get routinely removed in order to make it appear like Copernicus was Polish born Mikolaj Kopernik. The wiki talk archives show much of this information, such as [25] which can all be found on goggle.com. Keeping regular Kirchenbuch (church records) birth (baptism), marriage, death were only started with the Protestant Reformation, thus the records for the German language Prussian Hanseatic cities of Thorn (Torun) and Frauenburg (Frombork) were only started after Copernicus. His mother Barbara Watzenrode, and other relatives of Prince-Bishop Lucas Watzenrode were long time burghers of the Hanse city Thorn in Prussia and Nicolaus Koppernigk's father's name was Nicolas. Koppernigk is the name of the town in Silesia (Holy Roman Empire), where the father's side came from. One also went to Krakow, which in the 15th century was also a Hanse city, where German craftsmen established businesses and churches. That is, where Copernicus studied for a time. Copernicus, staunchly catholic and a church man certainly would have had his name in Latin on a birth or death certificate. As you can see from the archives (mentioned above) Copernicus was always referred to as Borussus Mathematicus, Prussian Mathematician, because the country he was born in, where he worked and died, was Prussia. One thing for sure, his records definately did not say: born Mikolai. Labbas 6 January 2007