Jump to content

Talk:Szymon Starowolski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits by Jacurek

[edit]

I have made two edits

which reverts the article to the last version by Nihil novi. Rather than making a single revert, I did the same in two steps, with edit summaries. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow this link regarding Copernicus nationality.[[1]] Thanks]] Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add Starowolski's quotes there yourself? -- Matthead  Discuß   19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How relevant is this quote? And how reliable is the translation? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Piotrus, these questions are hard to answer. These quotes are as relevant as Starowolski and Copernicus. Broscius had brought (now lost, sadly) documents of/about Copernicus from Frauenburg to Cracow, and Starowolski probably had seen them before expanding his work for the 2nd edition of 1627. So he knew something we have not other proof of, like, for example, that NC acquired rudiments of math in Cracow, and then studied at German universities [2]. Unlike earlier biographical sketches about Copernicus, which are lost, Starowolski's survived, making him, after Mulerius in the 1617 edition, one of his earliest biographers, about 8 decades after his death. Both Starowolski and Broscius were ardent Poles, and them not having published more on Copernicus might tell us something, too. Erna Hilfstein (Kluger), a coworker of historian Edward Rosen (1906-1985) [3], was born in Cracow in December 1924 [4], and died [5] on October 13, 2003. After guess-what, she went to the US, earned a Ph.D. in history in 1978, and collaborated on the English version of the multi-volume complete works of Nicholas Copernicus (the comparable German work is the Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe) over many years. Among her many honors, she was awarded the Silver Medal of the Republic of Poland in 1991. Piotrus, despite failing to win the Gold Medal, do you think she has a chance of meeting your expectations in regard to the reliability of her translations? -- Matthead  Discuß   23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; perhaps you could stub Erna Hilfstein? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions by Radek (following deletions by Jacurek)

[edit]

Ahhhh...... this is why it's always good to check the refs provided and not take people's word for it. Here's what the provided ref actually says: This assessment, wrong in all the details (Regiomontamus was German, Copernicus Polish). So what the ref is actually saying is "that translation is wrong as far as that goes".radek (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, you deleted "his fellow countryman" from the ref, again, following Jacurek's silent and pronounced earlier deletions. A repeated falsification of a sourced quote is not only editwarring, it's plain intentional vandalism, obviously fueled by a nationalistic agenda. Radek, can you really not tell the difference between an assessment and a translation, or do you simply want to blur things with your assertion about the ref? As discussed in the section above, the accuracy of Dr. Erna Hilfstein's translation, reproduced by J. L. Heilbron, is beyond doubt, and it rightfully includes "his fellow countryman" because Starowolski had written "populari suo" almost 400 years ago.
That is the whole story, without omissions. So J. L. Heilbron actually agrees to Starowolski's assessment where it counts, even though he criticizes his details, like the embellishment with Greek mythology. While Heilbron echoes the widespread superficial misclassification of Copernicus as "Polish", he belittles the nationality as detail, as most modern writers do, putting few if any effort in research on that topic. It is remarkable that Starowolski, who actually was a Pole, living in Poland after 1569 when Royal Prussia got tied closer to it, did not think of calling Copernicus a fellow countryman of himself, as he was well aware that those Prussians subject to the crown were no Poles, let alone those in the duchy, or those born shortly after 1466. Actually, nobody called Copernicus a Pole until that claim was invented in the late 18th century or so. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So J. L. Heilbron actually agrees to Starowolski's assessment where it counts, even though he criticizes his details, like the embellishment with Greek mythology. - uh, no. What Heilbron calls "wrong in details" and criticizes is obviously the "fellow countryman" part of the translation, since he follows it up with "Regiomontanus was German, Copernicus Polish" (and yes, also the 3yrs old part). The "right where it counts" refers to the "Copernicus revived the science of heavenly motions" part of the quote (as is obvious from the following sentence).
And please, I'm pretty sure you don't have the super power to read people's minds, much less dead people's minds so your OR in regard to Starowolski's motives/intentions is out of place here. As is your ORish assertion that nobody called Copernicus a Pole until 18th century.
If you want the quote to include the "fellow countryman" part then in interest of NPOV that needs to be balanced with Heilbron's assessment that the quote is inaccurate since, according to him, "Regiomontanus was German, Copernicus Polish".radek (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I really don't know where to start. No, Radeksz, the translation is not incorrect. What J. L. Heilbron criticizes as imprecise is not the translation, but the original claim by Starowolski, as expressed in his Latin. There can be no doubt at all that "populari suo" means "fellow countryman". Heilbron may be of the opinion that Starowolski's claim was wrong, but there can be no doubt that Starowolski actually meant to make this claim, and that Heilbron understood him (and not some translator) to be making that claim. So, don't remove that part from the translation again, because you will be blocked for vandalistic falsification of sources. However, before we go down this road, won't you guys consider that this whole issue is totally irrelevant to this article? Including this whole quotation here and making it a battleground relating to Copernicus is such a classic "WP:COATRACK" issue. It's so obvious it hurts. I really cannot understand why several otherwise intelligent editors spend so much time over this perfectly ridiculous off-topic issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPaS, Matthead said (I'll quote again): So J. L. Heilbron actually agrees to Starowolski's assessment - perhaps I wasn't clear, but whether it's the translation or the assessment that is incorrect (i.e. Heilbron clearly doesn't agree with one or the other) is immaterial to the point. If Matthead wants to use this as a means to push a certain view of Copernicus' nationality, then what the source actually says needs to be included.
In fact I actually completely agree with you that this shouldn't be turned into a COATRACK (as well as POV-FORK, since this kind of thing would never fly at the main article on Copernicus because uninvolved editors would remove it) or a proxy-war over Copernicus' nationality. Which is exactly why I brought up what the source actually says. I'm fine with the entire quote removed.
Also, please do not threaten me with blocks as 1) I have done nothing wrong (and I'm the one who actually initiated talk page discussion on this) 2) you and I, and some other editors, are still both involved in the same ArbCom case creating a possible COI here, 3) you're apparently letting a lot of other things slide from some of the other editors here and there.radek (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've removed the contentious part *once* - based on Heilbron's comments in the source which Matthead didn't bother to provide. If there is a compromise to be worked out here, I'm all for it. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle BRD and all that.radek (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My warning stands. You falsified a source, don't do it again. And if you want to play your favourite game of biting away admins from working on Arbcom enforcement in this domain, you won't have much luck with me, so don't even try. I've handed out sanctions and warnings on several other editors on all sides during the last weeks, and I had explicit confirmation from Arbcom members that my inclusion on the parties list in the current case does not mean I'm "involved" in the sense of being barred from administrative action. As you know perfectly well, I'm only formally a party because I was among the editors who first forwarded those e-mails to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not falsified a source. At most I made a good faith-ed mistake, based on my reading of Heilbron - which is still valid as far as the more general issue goes (My Latin's shaky and I tried several different online translators before making the change, none of which brought up the word "countryman", and Heilbron does explicitly say the quote or assessment is incorrect). I am not biting away at you, nor at any other admins, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I am simply disagreeing with you and I don't appreciate being threatened (you could have made your point and asked me not to mess with the quote without immediately bringing up blocking) or being told that my "favourite game" is "biting away admins" which borders on a personal attack.radek (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, about the Latin: the word is of course popularis (lit. 'of the people'), which as an adjective can mean simply 'popular' or other related things, but as a noun and in the connection with a reflexive possessive (suus etc.) regularly means 'compatriot', the relevant entry is number II.A(b) in Lewis & Short [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to respond to this thread anymore. Thanks.radek (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Szymon Starowolski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Szymon_Starowolski&oldid=1199280932"