Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Thorn/Thorun Nicolaus Copernicus' City of Birth:

Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen
Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen

Contents

VOTE

I hereby announce a vote in the two-round system. The subject of the vote shall be the description of Copernicus in the introductory sentence. Please mark your vote by signing yourself under the candidate of your choice:

  • 1) Polish astronomer
  • Balcer 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The Polish citizenship of Copernicus is undeniable and well documented. The precise extent of his German ethnicity is debatable, and the very significance of any ethnicity in the 15th century is questionable. The lead should make reference to the fact that Copernicus was a citizen of Kingdom of Poland and that Poland was the country in which he spent almost his entire life and to which he was was most closely connected. The nuances of this statement, and questions of ethnicity, can be discussed further down.
  • Space Cadet 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC) per Balcer
See remark below under the entry signed by Tirid Tirid --Matthead 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Matcreg 10:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Balcer explained it very well)
Another "first vote" - and that on the first day the account exists!--Dagox 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to VOTE with an IP, so I created an accont, as the admin suggested. what's wrong about that??? I see you folks have a big problem with something..., Matcreg 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem with your new account, as nothing was contributed with it since your vote. How come? Want to enlight us to which articles you have contributed under an IP? --Matthead 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Space Cadet" --Matthead 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Anatopism 15:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • per Balcer --SylwiaS | talk 22:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • logologist|Talk 06:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • mikka (t) 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ak47K 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with Balcer.
  • See Britannica and Columbia articles. --Irpen 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KonradWallenrod 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Halibutt 01:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • --Lysytalk 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Olessi 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Agree with Irpen. Anyway, the Nationality section should be the last section in the article, not the first.


  • 2) Polish astronomer of German origin
  • De Bart, 11:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC). See my opinion here [1]
  • Ksenon 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Citizenship 1st, ethnicity second. Gives due to both, and is most accurate. As De Bart commented, nationality can be in both political and ethnic context, and such a contentious issue should make the distinction.
  • Polar Bear 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! Your first edit on Wikipedia, and you already vote! Balcer 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Also congratulations for 3 edits to 3 different articles since!--Matthead 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ragesoss 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC). Nationality, both with respect to both citizenship and origin, are never irrelevant to a biography, even (perhaps especially) a scientific biography. I would add "Catholic" in the introductory sentence as well, as that fact was extremely significant for the course of his life and science, but that's another matter.


  • 3) No mention of nationality in the lead
  • Dagox 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • David Kernow 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • D.Putz: only possible agreement 14:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • MG either no mentioning in the lead, but in the text later, or keep the historical description that he was known for for centuries Copernicus Prussus Mathematicus see references Prussian Mathematician Copernicus 2/22/2006
  • Absolutely no nationality claims whatsoever in the lead, keep the main article neutral and focused on science, explain the ethnic/nationality/allegiance stuff in a separate paragraph as the separate article was deleted after a vote. --Matthead 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Splette 15:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC) - This is an endless discussion and Copernicus achievments are more important than his nationality. Therefore let's not mention it in the lead. The separate paragraph about his nationality should suffice.
  • TKE 06:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - Ditto above, in my own words. I feel that his contribution to science is elevated above his nationality. His views would have been the subject of ostracism no matter where he hailed from in Europe, and I feel disputes over ethnicity are religated to nationalistic pride, which don't factor into Wikipedia.
  • The details are too complex and not relevant enough for the intro -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Notice however that Chris 73 presented his opinion that Poles and Poland can hardly contribute to cultural achievements by stating that diseases are particular aspects of Polish culture In the meantime, please enjoy this particular aspect of the polish culture[2] --Molobo 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What an excellent rebuttal, Molobo. True to form. --Thorsten1 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thorsten you are more concerned with somebody spoting anti-polish comments then by the comments themslelfs. True to form. --Molobo 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say something like that. Anyway, please try to put colons and line-breaks into their proper places. Cleaning up after your chaotic editing is a bit tedious. --Thorsten1 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you know what I am going to say, why adress me at all. Of course you ignored antipolish comments as usuall.
--Molobo 20:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"If you know what I am going to say, why adress me at all". In order to expose your debating style to the rest of world. "you ignored antipolish comments as usuall." Chris73's opinion that "the details are too complex and not relevant enough for the intro" is perfectly valid, regardless of any Polish plait jokes he may or may not have cracked in the past. It is actually quite common for you to try and "prove" your opponents wrong by referring to things they said in completely unrelated discussions in the past. It is also common for you to brand your opponents "anti-Polish" for even the slightest violations of political correctness (which you apparently feel to be exempt from yourself, btw.). End of discussion for me. --Thorsten1 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In order to expose your debating style to the rest of worldI advise you to concentrate on the matter discussed on the page. Do you suggest that I should debate more like you for example here:I do not feel the need to be lectured on German history by someone who so obviously lacks any historical training and knowledge. I'm afraid I must back down on my former speculation that you were studying at Rydzyk University. It's even worse than that: Apparently you are studying at Google University. Have a good day and adress personal issues on my talk page rather then in public articles.
--Molobo 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)--Molobo 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"I advise you to concentrate on the matter discussed on the page." Advise yourself first. It was you who tried to disqualify Chris73's vote by referring to his opinion on a completely unrelated matter. I merely responded to this and commented on this habit of yours (which you demonstrated again in your last post). You reap what you saw, Molobo. --Thorsten1 10:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 4) Prussian astronomer
  • MG or (historically known as ) Prussian Mathematician (of German Nation) [3], more recently claimed as Polish 2/22/2006



  • 5) a European
  • logologist|Talk 04:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • MG or a European 2/22/2006



  • 6) from $CITY
  • Even though User:Ksenon thinks it is a joke and thinks he can remove this comment unilaterally. It would still remove the controversy. Agathoclea 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I explained on your talk page. Looked like "Dollah-City" at 1st, therefore the "unilateral" revert of something that looked like vandalism. Ksenon 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


What if someone (as I) equally likes three of the options above? Szopen 07:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Choose one or abstain? One vote for each? David Kernow 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to count votes by anonymous IPs? Balcer 15:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple straw poll. The results have no legitimacy. --Sciurinæ 15:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, to have any kind of fairness, we should discount votes by anonymous IPs, as well as votes by obvious sockpuppets. Balcer 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I object the vote. Should we vote next if Hitler was right that Jews conspired against German Reich or if Earth is flat ? No serious scholary source claims Kopernik was German(with the exception of some Germans). And I don't see why Wikipedia should endorse German nationalist ideology from XIX century as was noted earlier. --Molobo 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Posted in rebuttal to Molobo (and others)

Nicolaus Copernicus' place of birth, work and death as for centuries recorded by the scientific and church community, have been posted repeatedly and summarized at: [4]. Balcer and Molobo repeatedly insist on Polish Copernicus, born in Poland, died in Poland, are defaming everyone not agreeing to their extreme POV, despite proof otherwise. MG 2/25/2006

Given these choices, the vote is misguided. (And by the way, who started it?) Rather than trying to manufacture history, why not stick to the facts? Here's what you know:

  • Where he was born, where he lived, what country that was in then, what country that was in now. Just state the facts.
  • The conception of identity (ethnicity, religion, nation) at that time was entirely different than it is now.

I see that's similar to the Anne Frank compromise below. Also see this comment below - flux.books 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, let us go through the list for Copernicus: born in Torun, Poland, lived in Torun, Poland, Krakow, Poland and Frombork, Poland. At the time these were in Poland, now they also are in Poland. To save ourselves repeating the word Poland 6 times, can't we just use shorthand and say that he was Polish (in the sense: of Poland, most closely associated with Poland, in the same sense that Vistula is a Polish river, LOT is a Polish airline etc).
  • I think it is obvious that just about all social concepts 600 years ago were different than they are now, so this does not need to be explicitly stated. Balcer 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Simply insert that opinion into the opinion poll. If you want to say that he's born in a city of Poland, lived in a city of Poland and died there - as Balcer had suggested - you're simply stating an argument of those who assume him Polish because the city's allegiance at that time was (at least it seems to be) to a Polish ruler. Either there's a balance of arguments or there's no argument at all in that respect. Every choice of facts is a subjective act. --Sciurinæ 12:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Nicolaus Copernicus' place of birth, work and death as for centuries recorded by the scientific and church community, have been posted repeatedly and summarized at: [5]. Balcer and Molobo repeatedly insist on Polish Copernicus, born in Poland, died in Poland, are defaming everyone not agreeing to their POV, despite proof otherwise.

MG 2/24/2006

Whatever you amateurs all vote for: you cannot fool the world and historical facts. Copernicus will remain in the scientific world a Polish Astronomer forever, even if you would like to see him sometimes more or less german. It does not matter. It matters solely your ego. Wikipedia - edited by children and youngsters mainly - will not change the facts. I wish you all spending energy on more valuable topics. Matcreg 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Nationality in lead at all - Version

Please check out this Version


It seems from the voting that this version is not going to pass. Please stop trying to insert it into the article before the vote is finalized. Balcer 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I had stopped trying already after the first attempt, which you removed right away. As you can see in the versions, I moved it to talk before you came up with above message.

I have looked, but cannot find anywhere, were is says, that the unprotected Nicolaus Copernicus article has been unprotected but it is not allowed to be edited. Would you please be so kind and point out where it says that. Thank you MG 6/24/2006

You can edit whatever you like, obviously I am not able to stop you. I would simply like to suggest that it would be common courtesy to all the other people that bothered to vote here to at least wait until the vote is tallied before introducing changes to the lead, or pushing one's own POV. Balcer 03:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


sock puppets, vote and unbiased versions

I got my doubts with this vote: There are five votes (PolarBear, Matcreg, Tirid Tirid, Anatopism, Ak47K) which are of doubtable origin (no other contributions at all, no significant contributions to this debate, some are just created within the last ten days). Even if some of them do really exist (and I excuse for that case!!!), it seems, that some contributors take every mean to decide that debate, hence to manipulate it. It was pointed out by Durova and FocalPoint what is true beyond all historical debates: The nationality of Copernicus is not so important for his life, that it must be mentioned in the lead. As we will hardly find an agreement whether he should be referred to as Polish or something else it is absolutely clear, that the only way to solve the problem is "no nationality in the lead", as it is certainly the only non-POV version, because it can't be biased: it simply skips the question. (I know that some of you will ask if there's a controversy at all, and claim that all major scholary works call him Polish - exept the German nationalists (see Molobo's statement at the bottom of Annoying disussion) at the Harvard university like O. Gingerich or like E. Rosen or those at the Stanford University[6] or like the contemporary sources or Copernicus himself ("patria Borussia") or...). Everthing else will lead to edit-revert-wars. I additionally propose to shift the section about his nationality at the bottom of the article to focus on the really important thing: Copernicus' scientific achievements, which are completely uninfluenced by his true or supposed nationality/ethnicity/citizenship/mother tongue/decent.--Dagox 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why should we bow down to echo's of German nationalist ideology that refused to accept that a Pole could be capable of achieving something(A belief that Poland cannot contribut something valuable is sadly shared even today by some[7]). I do however believe there is a place in the article on mentioning the attempts to portay him as German with the rise of German nationalism.
--Molobo 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"I see no reason why should we bow down to echo's of German nationalist ideology that refused to accept that a Pole could be capable of achieving something(A belief that Poland cannot contribut something valuable is sadly shared even today by some". Nobody is expected to bow down to any echoes here, Molobo. As mentioned a few times already, I do not have an opinion on this topic. However, it seems a bit far-fetched to claim that those who believe Copernicus was German "refuse to accept that a Pole could be capable of achieving something" or of "contributing something valuable". When I say that Bertrand Russell was not Irish - does that mean I refuse to accept that an Irishman "could be capable of achieving something"? Seems like you do not have a very high opinion of Polish science yourself, if you consider Copernicus as the only potential candidate to demonstrate that "that a Pole could be capable of achieving". --Thorsten1 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
However, it seems a bit far-fetched to claim that those who believe Copernicus was German :::"refuse to accept that a Pole could be capable of achieving something"
This was the view of German nationalists in the years of their occupation of Poland in 1939-1944 when they removed information about Polish identity of Copernicus. So you are incorrect.
--Molobo 20:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not deny that German nationalists denied that Copernicus was Polish. However, I do deny that everybody who denies that he is Polish is a German nationalist. Is that simple enough? --Thorsten1 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Annoying discussion

The discussion has become annoying, because some just repeat their arguments but you don't take into account the other discussion contributions. But perhaps we will never find a compromise, which is historically valid and emotionally acceptable.

To User:Balcers statement in the vote: Dear Balcer! I pointed out several times, that Copernicus was not a citizen of the Polish kingdom, but of Warmia, which belonged to the Polish crown and kept as much as possible politically indedendent. It is right that there was no other politically independent entity to which Copernicus was closer than Poland (exept Warmia), although he had personal contact not only to the Polish king but to the leader of the Teutonic order as well (Albrecht von Hohenzollern asked him for medical advice, Copernicus stayed at the Marienburg with explicit permission of the chapter of Frauenburg). "As to whether he was an ethnic Pole or an ethnic German, I could not care less," you said some days ago. Is that no longer true? I don't see a reason what makes it more useful to interpret his somehow vague status as a member of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth more important than the language he spoke or the political environment he lived in. The more I follow the discussion the more I realise how the question of national classification runs us in to difficulty. If we made any national statement in the lead, we would have to put it right in the following. It seems to produce more confusion than it solves. I made a reference to Owen Gingerich, who is an indisputable capacity in the field. Why can't we follow his policy and treat the question more carefully by putting it away from the lead? --Dagox 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was only created in 1569 by the Union of Lublin, long after Copernicus' death. He was a citizen of the Kingdom of Poland, which happened to be in a dynastic union with Lithuania at the time. I really don't see what is vague about Copernicus being a citizen of the Kingdom of Poland. Royal Prussia entered into a union with the Polish kindom in 1454 (see the quote I entered below). Warmia as a part of Poland tried to keep as independent as possible, just like most other constituent political units of Europe's states so I don't see why that is relevant. It is just common practice to refer to people by their citizenship in the sovereign polical unit they live in. The specific province of a given political unit from which they come is usually not mentioned. To make this plain, consider that even today American states jelously guard their prerogatives and tend to resist any encroachment of the federal government on their rights. But does that mean, for example, that we should call Bill Clinton an Arkansanian first, and only later mention that he is an American? Obviously not.
As for my statement that I don't care for Copernicus ethnicity, I still stand by it. I think his ethnicity is not important and should not be mentioned int he lead. But his citizenship and the country he lived in is important and should be mentioned in the lead.
Finally, let's understand the purpose of the lead: it is supposed to present essential information in a highly condensed form. By definition this condensing requires a certain degree of simplification and some loss of information. Clearly the reader has to read the rest of the article to get the full picture. I don't see why that should be a problem. Or do you propose to remove leads from all Wikipedia biography articles? Balcer 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Misunderstanding from my side, as far as your statement on his ethnicity is concerned. Sorry. Nationality vs. ethnicity: I understand your reasoning. You're right: Struggle for prerogatives not necessarilly indicates that someone doesn't belong to a certain country. But as this is your only argument for Copernicus' nationality, it weakens the impact of your attempt to see a declaration of allegiance in Copernicus career. Moreover, the way you estimate the value of certain facts and how you interpret them is not the only possible way. Your definition makes all inhabitants of the Polish crown territory to Poles (including the Teutonic knights) - and e. g. almost all Czechs of XVI century to Germans. So I don't see, that this point of view is superior to an ethnic definition (which also don't solves all problems). Because I will hardly convince you in this matter I think "no nationality in the lead" is the only version, where we have a chance to find an agreement.--Dagox 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Holy Roman Empire is not such a good example because by the 15th century it had long ceased to be a coherent state and became just a loose federation of sovereign entities. If one is looking for an analogy, one could compare it to today's European Union. So I would certainly not insist on labelling Czechs, Italians and Dutch people living within the Empire's boundaries as German.
As for the Teutonic Knights, they became vassals of Poland, but did not become an integral part of the kingdom, so there is no reason to consider them Polish under my definition.
Let me also state that I think it would be ridiculous to force a nationality on somebody on the basis of citizenship only if we have solid proof that the person in question did not want to be of that nationality. So, if somebody can point to primary sources which prove Copernicus considered himself primarily a German and did not want to be considered Polish, then of course we should not call him Polish against his will. Obviously, no such evidence has yet emerged, to my knowledge. Thus, if someone lives his entire life in a given sovereign country, is loyal to its ruler, and is not known to express any dissatisfaction at being considered the country's citizen, why not call him a citizen of that country?
As for the ethnic definition, it has already been discussed extensively how one's ethnicity did not much matter in those years (Kings of Poland did not even have to speak Polish etc.). Therefore, it is trying to squeeze Copernicus into an ethnic category that I object to as historically invalid. Balcer 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Again and again: Warmia was not part of Polish kingdom but only of the Polish crown, to declare it "integral part" of the kingdom fails anyway. Your reasoning is a somehow inconsequent, neither the Polish crown territory nor the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) were compact states. In case of the Polish crown you amply add peolple and territories, but for the HRE you deny this. And even if you don't accept the HRE as state, than the Czechs of XVI become Austrian or Bohemian, which includes both Czech and German ethnicities. To define them as Czechs and separate them from Germans in Bohemia is only possible by ethnicity. "If someone lives his entire life in a given souvereign country, is loyal to its ruler, and is not known to express any dissatisfaction at being considered the country's citizen, why not call him a citizen of that country", apply this to Polish people in Austria, Russia, Prussia (later Germany). Last but not least: Why do you refuse then the possibility "Polish astronomer of German origin", where his nationality is called Polish but a reference to his ethnicity/family/mother tongue is made?--Dagox 12:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
1.Are not Polish kingdom and Polish crown one and the same? 2.Obviously HRE was not a real state by any stretch in the 15th century but the Kingdom of Poland definitely was. Please take a look at any historical atlas to convince yourself of that (Poland is shown in one solid colour, HRE is a rainbow of colors). 3.Why not just stick to the name Bohemians, instead of trying to separate anybody, unless of course we have clear proof that a given person insisted on being considered a Czech or a German. 4.Plenty of Poles opted for the German and Russian nationalities in the 19th century, as evidenced by the common occurence of Polish-sounding names in those countries. I respect the choice these people made and I would definitely not insist on calling them Poles. But the 19th century situation, when ethnic nationality became paramount in importance, obviously has little relevance to the situation in the 15th century. 5.I oppose the use of "German origin" because: (a). for someone living in the 15th century this applies poorly, as people of that time did not think of themselves in ethnic categories (b). the precise extent of Copernicus' Polish or German ethnicity is impossible to determine, as obviously he had to be influenced by both languages which freely mixed in Poland's cities at the time. Balcer 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
1. The Polish crown consisted in the territory of the Polish kingdom plus the territory of the grand duchy Prussia (among others). The king was liege Lord of Royal Prussia, the feud was given to the magnus dux Borussiae, which was in that case the same person namely Sigismund the Old but not in his function as king but as grand duke of Prussia. 2. Colours on maps, that's all? 3. Okay. 4.Okay. 5. Your POV, which I understand, but don't consider as the only possibility.--Dagox 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, you are wrong. Prussia was part of Polish kingdom. I though I explain it that already. 1) citizens of Royal Prussia pledged loyalty to KING OF POLAND, not to some grand duke of Prussia. 2) Every Polish king received a lot of title, including for example duke of Masovia or duke of Prussia 3) All treaties clearly stated Prussia was incorporated into Polish KINGDOM. I don't knwo where you get the idea that Sigismund got feud (from whom!?) as "Grand duke of Prussia". Surely not from serious historical work or primary sources. I will put that also to your talk page, since I start to get lost in that page... Szopen 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
In case of interest, please check out Szopen's and my talk page, where we shed a bit more light on it in a completely factual tone.--Dagox 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, it is trying to squeeze Copernicus into an ethnic category that I object to as historically invalid.
I agree with you Balcer. And according to the ethnicity of Copernic, we don't have any secure proof either, which culture and language he prefered in everyday conversation. Personally I know a family in Germany, where the mother is polish, the father german and the children don't speak polish at all. So beeing born by a german mother, as in the case of Copernicus does not mean that he was speaking and feeling german automatically. Does anyone have a source of his original texts written in german (like original letters not corrected by an editor), to see if he wrote in clear native german? De Bart, 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There are some letters of him written in German, and he was of German mother tongue as this was a prerequisite for joining in the "Natio Germanorum" at Bologna University as Edward Rosen pointed out (see E. Rosen: Copernicus and his successors. London, 1995, chapter on his relationship to italian science). There are complete editions of his letters, where you can find the references to his writings. In Warmia, the official administration language was German and Latin at that time - one of the prerogatives of Royal Prussia. This partly explains that there's even in case that Copernicus was a Polish native speaker a higher probability of written documents in German than in Polish. In his daily usage he hence used most likely German, the language of Royal Prussia. The extent of his knowledge of Polish is unknown. There are no Polish letters or other writings known today. You have not to sqeeze him more to call im "of German ethnicity" than to call him of "Polish by allegiance".--Dagox 12:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And he was of German mother tongue as this was a prerequisite for joining in the "Natio Germanorum" at Bologna University as Edward Rosen pointed out This argument was used before and was proven to be irrelevent as people signed up there regardless of their background.
As to German language being the basis of national belonging that is a very strange idea to determine nationality, as they were many Poles using German as their original language due to historical circumstances. Also are Swiss people using German Germans ?--Molobo 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The membership in the "Natio Germanorum" doesn't proof that Copernicus considered himself a German or was considerd as such (that was the argument before). But it shows that he used German on a high level.That was the question and that was Rosen's conslusion - not more and not less. Feel free to provide us with a comparable proof for his Polish language skills.--Dagox 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to provide us with a comparable proof for his Polish language skills

And what does have to do with discussion. My own grandmother speaks German better then Polish, yet I am a Pole. So the issue of language cannot be seen as determing national identity due to historical conditions of certain periods. Before XIX century language didn't determine one's national belonging. --Molobo 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"My own grandmother speaks German better then Polish, yet I am a Pole." Fair enough. However, your grandmother's language skills are completely irrelevant to this debate. After all, we are discussing Copernicus here - not his grandmother. " Before XIX century language didn't determine one's national belonging." Indeed. However, it's not only language that didn't determine "national belonging" - nothing did, because the concept of "national belonging" didn't even exist back then. Which is why the whole discussion is pointless. --Thorsten1 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Copernicus was a member of "natio Polona" too. It was in Padua. See [8]. So the membership says nothing, or it says that he spoke fluently german and polish! -- De Bart, 13:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
To quick, De Bart: The membership is not a declaration of nationality and/or ethnicity. So far I agree. If Polish mother tongue was a prerequisit for joining the Padua Natio Polonia, and if the source you gave is valid, is still an open question. Actually I found in none of the modern textbooks a word on Copernicus' Polish abilities. So perhaps you found something which pushes the knowledge of his personality - or your conclusion is simply false.--Dagox 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Dagox, as to my knowledge students from different ethnic backgrounds could join the "Germanorum". It would not surprise me a prerequisit of speaking german, but this does not conclude that german had to be the mother language of a joining student. The source I cited is valid, it is the german Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, a quite reputable source. -- De Bart, 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about giving primary sources and interpret them as Balcer has proposed. It is not about giving evidence to decide which side in a controversy is correct and which one is not. This discussion is pointless as long as parties try to argue whether Copernicus is Polish or German. Please focus on a consensus. --Sciurinæ 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does use primary sources of scholary works. There is no controversy about Copernicus in scholary world, just as there is no controversy if Earth is flat even if some people would arrive claiming otherwise on Wiki. Likewise the attempts of few German users who either wish to Germanise Kopernik or to erase the fact that he was Polish won't make this a controversy in scholary work. It was already shown that the only reason Kopernik was shown as German was German nationalist ideology that manifested itself against Poles, who as we all known were viewed as inferior even in XVIII century Prussia. As to origins, that is a weak argument-everybody in Central Europe has some mixed origins if you dig deep enough.--Molobo 11:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does use primary sources of scholary works" Exactly, but not for the purpose of declaring the winner of a controversy. See Wikipedia:No original research. "There is no controversy about Copernicus in scholary world" - that's really getting pathetic... of course there is! In the dispute over Nietzsches nationality, the orgin wasn't a "weak argument" for you: you proudly declared him of "Polish-German descent"[9] and defamed all opposition as Nazism and German nationalism... --Sciurinæ 12:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, but not for the purpose of declaring the winner of a controversy.

What controversy ? I see none. Everybody states him as Polish. that's really getting pathetic... of course there is! Where ? Nobody serious disputes he is Polish in scholary world.

the orgin wasn't a "weak argument" for you: you proudly declared him of "Polish-German descent"

But because of original research like you and your precusors German nationalists in previous centuries did towards Kopernik, but because Nietzsche openly declared himself Polish in case your history books don't speak about that as usually is the case. --Molobo 12:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In deed, there is no debate today. Often Copernicus is referred to as Polish because of the location of his life in recent Poland. In the scientific area, it was considered since a while as a useless project to proof or to confute a certain nationality, simply because this produces more misunderstandings than it helps to understand Copernicus' life and work. One example: "Thus the child of a German family was a subject of the Polish crown" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The most experts just omit a discussion of this matter as useless like Owen Gingerich and J. Hamel. So, Molobo, it doesn't become true by repeating again and again that the classification as Polish is only critizesed by German nationalists.--Dagox 12:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Dagox, except that there are debates nowadays. Guardian article of Nov. 2005: "The astronomer - who wrote entirely in Latin - hit the headlines last year following a row over whether he was German or Polish." To object Molobo's other claims of schoolary certainty, Prof Gassowski draws the article's bottom line saying "The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a European."[10] Sciurinæ 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As usuall Sciurin misleads by false presentation of the quote-Profesor Gassowkis speaks nothing about nationality of Koperni-only about his language abilities :"We don't know whether Copernicus spoke German or Polish. The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a European."
The last statement is simply a typical euroenthusiasm found among some Poles and doesn't say anything about nationality.--Molobo 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
(could you please stop the blizzards of false accusations against me? Thank you!) And are you seriously claiming that Professor Gassowki does not speak of Copernicus's nationality when he says "The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a European."?!? The previous sentence does not change the sentence's meaning. Sciurinæ 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in guessing that those who vote for "Copernicus was a European" are Euroenthusiasts, in other words are prejudiced, those who say he is German represent "German nationalism", those who avoid mentioning his nationality are "the sad remains of German nationalism" of "Germans after WW2" and those who want to mention his ethnicity are those who have overlooked that Molobo is "a child form German originated family also btw, so such claims are irrelevent to ethnic identity at all"[sic]. Sciurinæ 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So, Molobo, it doesn't become true by repeating again and again that the classification as Polish is only critizesed by German nationalists Please present scholary objective works of modern era claiming he is German. I am a child form German originated family also btw, so such claims are irrelevent to ethnic identity at all.--Molobo 13:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it so hard to understand, Molobo: I neither want to germanise Copernicus nor I want to see him exclusively (!) polonised. I don't get the point: Owen Gingerich is probably the capacity in the field, appreciated for his work also in Poland. He recommends J. Hamels book in particular for his careful treatment of Copernicus' nationality, which means that there's no statement about that, just explanations of the historical situation. Only because neutral historicians become careful in calling him a German he is not automatically Polish and nothing else.--Dagox 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Only because neutral historicians become careful in calling him a German he is not automatically Polish and nothing else If some historians feel influenced enough by German nationalism that the avoid naming Kopernik Polish astronomer could be valuable article in itself on the influence it had on historiography. However I already presented a source showing that all major scholary works give him as Polish.--Molobo 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, only German nationalism makes people not call Copernicus a Polish astronomer... "However I already presented a source showing that all major scholary works give him as Polish." No, your source didn't show anything. And even if it did, one single exception would prove that statement faulty ("One swallow does not make a summer", remember?), which has already been done by citing Duden, a major scholary source. Sciurinæ 15:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I tracked some sources to Copernicus german letters and found that one posted on the Warmia-Talkpage by Szopen in http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/adanilecki/kopernikana.zip. There is one letter signed by Copernicus that starts like this: Durchlauchtiger, hochgebarner, hochwirdiger furst, gnedigster here. Unnsere vilgutwillig dienst, seyn E[wer] F[urstlichen] G[naden] alzeit bereith. Gnedigster here, wir haben wichtig unnde swere sachen widdir Hanszen Graebel im Belgischen gesessen an E[wre] F[urstliche] G[nade] zu tragen. Der wegen ist unnser demutig bethe, E[wer] F[ursltiche] G[nade] wolle dem selbigen Hanszen Graebel unnde unss eynen rechts tag unnde stell E[wer] F[ursltiche] G[nade] wol bequem ernennen, auch hirzwyschen gebieten [...]

That looks like Pope John Paul II would speak german. At least it doesn't look like a German's mother-tongue at all. Even Luther wrote a much more understandable german at that time. So I would be very careful with reasoning that Copernicus mother-tongue was german or that he used german at a very high level. But maybe a linguistic expert may help here. And finally almost all of you here use english at a "high level" and that doesn't mean that all of you are english native speakers obviously. In opposite writing clear and faultless polish is not easy for a foreigner, so if somebody writes such polish I would rather believe that he is polish, but that's not the case with such easy languages like english or german. But for the rejoicing of Germans no such Copernicus writing in polish has been found yet. -- De Bart, 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good research, but you're missing the point. Repeating myself: "Wikipedia is not about giving primary sources and interpret them as. It is not about giving evidence to decide which side in a controversy is correct and which one is not. This discussion is pointless as long as parties try to argue whether Copernicus is Polish or German. Please focus on a consensus." --Sciurinæ 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree. I believe I didn't explain my point clear enough for you. I wrote this exactly to prevent any further biased reasoning and interpretations from the fact, that Copernicus wrote (after his main writing language Latin) in german too. Please don't try to pervert my words. Secondly, there will be never a consensus on that controversial topic, this is a contradiction in terms. For further discussion see [11] -- De Bart, 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

De Bart needs to read some German language records from 500 years ago, here are some samples [12] 1457 Riesenburg stroll down to detailed typed copy of the original text for comparison with the Copernicus letter, then restate analysis (Bart guesses). MG 2/24/2006

Maybe you are right, maybe not. I read the linked texts. Their style of writing show similiarity with the Copernicus text. But still, I would not conclude from this, that german was Copernicus mother tongue. The only fact is: He wrote or let write in german too. That's all, we can say today about it. -- De Bart, 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Prussian Nicolaus Copernicus and more recent Polish assumption

This is an earlier version [13] : Nicolaus Copernicus (born February 19, 1473 – died May 24, 1543) was for centuries known as a Prussian Mathematician and Astronomer [14], while in the 20th century he is sometimes assumed as Polish[1] [2], who is remembered for providing the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (Sun-centered) theory of the solar system in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

while in the 20th century he is sometimes assumed as this could be shortened to now (sometimes) assumed

On the vote question:

1. Polish - that is incorrect and cannot stand

Correct, since he was Polish by political allegiance.

Incorrect, Anyone calling this correct, needs to call all Polish people (starting with Piasts , rulers of the Polans, Poland) German, because they pledged allegiance, took land on loan, from the German emperors, starting with the first ruler Mieszko I on up.

Paying tribute did not make the Polish state a member of the Holy Roman Empire. Besides, if you want to go by this definition, you should call Mieszko a Roman :). Balcer 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Mieszko did not took a land in loan from German emperor. He paid a TRIBUTE from part of his land (usque at Vatha fluvium). Similarly, Boleslaw in one period took a land in loan from emperor, but only IIRC Milsko and Luzyce. And Warmia was part of Polish kingdom, not just paying the tribute (I see you left the discussion on Warmia talk page). I also posted photos of original documents, in which in it mentioned a) that Koperink put oath of allegiance to Polish king and Polish kingdom b) that he described himself as loyal subject of Polish king.Szopen 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


2. Polish of German origin - is still incorrect, because he was n o t Polish

see above.


3. No mention - has been tried and accepted in earlier version - where it stated that modern nationality cannot be applied , but then the Polish Patriot faction took over - again

Should be mentioned, definetely.


4. Prussian - is correct, but it should also state German, so as to not confused people, who do not know the history.

No, because then it should state that Prussian in XV century was "new-Prussian" identity, which was developing in Royal and Ducal Prussia which consisted of BOTH Polish and German speakers. Only in XVIII and XIX century new-Prussian identity was broken into "Polish" and "German" parts, while the name was kept only by "German" part. Mentioning him as Prussian would misled people, because most are not aware that "Prussian" may mean something else than "German" (though "Prussian" would be of course maybe most correct in describing both Kopernik and people like Dzialynscy).


5. European - has been tried for a while, but again, the Polish Patriots would not go for anything other than Polish

Come on. There were as many attempts by Germans patriots as by Polish patriots to introduce their own "version" Szopen 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


MG 2/18/2006

Royal and Ducal Prussia did not only have German an Polish speakers but also many Lithuanians, Hugenottes (French), Swiss, Austrian, Scots, English, Russians.

Szopen, for centuries Copernicus is described by the scientific community (see portraits etc) as Prussian Mathematician of German Nation etc etc. That is simply stating facts. I have made a list showing this. I have also asked to have Polish facts posted here. But there has only been constant referral to EB or Polish professor said this or he was Polish by allegiance, but n o facts are posted. MG 2/21/2006

MG, you were posted examples below of how PRUSSIAN king Frederic referred to Copernicus as Polish. He was referred as Polish, and occasionally as Prussian. i see you selectively choose facts which suit you and ignore others (as was with the maps of Warmia). Szopen 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia is here to report the best, most up to date and reliable information. Given that, why should we state in the lead what people thought about Copernicus' nationality in the 18th century? By the same token, would you want to write in the initial sentence of the article Earth that for centuries people thought it was flat? Undeniably true, but totally out of place. Balcer 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the vote

I don't see convincing evidence that Copernicus was Polish. I hesitate to declare him German, as he was clearly influenced by the Polish culture present in his environment and it can't be finally excluded, that he was of Polish mother tongue (although it doesn't seem likely). I think he lived in a melting pot of Polish, German and other cultural influences. Forcing him to be of clearly defined nationality is in that case an anchronism. But it seems for some of the pro-polish fraction unacceptable that Germans and Poles weren't as hostile to each other as in later centuries. A pitty. --dago, 16:39, 20 February 2006 (CET)

Name?

How come the article is named "Nicolaus Copernicus", his scientific works show this name, and even the linked Museum website from Poland calls him so - yet the article starts with "Mikołaj Kopernik"? The autograph at uj.edu.pl clearly shows an N and a C, not M and K, and a latin l rather than a "ł". As "L with stroke first appeared in the 16th century, in Polish texts", was this new polish letter even used during Copernicus' lifetime? And if so, by himself for himself? Is there any evidence somewhere proving that he was called, or called himself, "Mikołaj Kopernik"? Please point it out.

If not, the Polish version should certainly not be featured in such a prominent way, and left to pl.wikipedia.org, or the Copernicus' nationality article. The German version "Nikolaus Kopernikus" is not mentioned at all, so the article should not start with a bold statement in Polish. --Matthead 01:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put the well known latin name where it belongs, and the link to the nationality issue to a surprisingly fitting place. --Matthead 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a miracle, why the (recent) polish version of his name is at the very beginning of this article: Copernicus' name was written in very different versions throughout his lifetime. He himself used different versions. So there is not the one and only correct version. In the english world he is commonly referred to as "Nicolaus Copernicus", the latin version, which was used at the first version of his "De revolutionibus". There are other versions present in polish and german. The mentioned polish form is not found in a single document of Copernicus' own hand. But this is discussed at Copernicus' nationality. I can't see any reason to mention the polish version here. On the other hand it's a waste of time to change it, if it is immediately undone by some who is not willing to discuss it here.

The separate article Copernicus' nationality is now history following a vote for deletion, so I gave the "immediate undoers" another opportunity to waste their(!) time. Same applies for English city names with the Polish or German name in () - rather than Polish names with English in (). Was it a coincidence that the German city of Nürnberg was only written as Nuremberg? --Matthead 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I wrote his Polish name in brackets, just as you said here is proper, so why you keep reverting it? Also, why you don't answer Szopen's arguments on the Nationality dispute only simply remove Copernicus' nationality from the article. There was no consensus to do that and I don't believe there ever will.--SylwiaS | talk 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There are over 3 dozen international versions of his name. Why should the English Wikipedia list the name of Copernicus in modern day Poland, and have "Polish" twice(!) in the first sentence? The sentence about the grave says it 3 times: ... Polish archeologists ... in central Poland... on Poland's Baltic coast ... (BTW, a List of Polish coasts is needed to keep track of them). This is not only superfluous and redundant - the repeated repetitions are just annoying, like spam. Polish or Poland is currently mentioned 13 times in the article including the 3 categories, Italy/ian 5 times, Prussia(n) and Teutonic three times. That score should be enough to satisfy Polish patriots in and outside of Poland. If not, how about in turn marking in a similar way every name and reference which is undoubtedly related to an unidentified country between the Alps and Denmark? Those editors which only add national tags and little else to the article itself could use their experience here, unless they have removed the letters G, E, R, M, A, N from their keyboards. If Poles are so confident about the Polish nationality of Polish Copernicus from Poland, why do they have to mention it so often? --Matthead 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you allergic to the words Polish and Poland? How do you want to call Polish archaeologists? It's an international encyclopedia, so nationality is often mentioned. That's all.--SylwiaS | talk 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
More Polish POV pushing, Sylwia? In this case, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling him a Pole, although it's probably safer just to omit his nationality in the lead, simply because many may be tempted to revert it. - Calgacus 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there's anything wrong in calling him a Pole too.--SylwiaS | talk 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why the most popular name variants (German, Polish) should not be mention in the lead. It is customary to do so. I am adding Polish name, feel free to add German. I don't think that others are needed (especially that current one is latin or Englicized latin anyway).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Piotruś. Let's include all three relevant versions - Latin first, Polish second, German third - and be done with it. If the "Mikołaj" faction here was really so confident about Copernicus being Polish to the core, they would probably be somewhat more generous about granting the Germans "their" name. The stubborn refusal to allow the German name (or even allow doubts that Copernicus might have been anything else than Polish) in the article can easily be read as a sign of weakness. The Poles are usually quite flexible about first names. It's not uncommon at all for someone called "Mikołaj" to introduce himself as "Nicholas" or "Nikolaus". That's why the stubborn insistence that Copernicus should always be "Mikołaj" doesn't come across as terribly souvereign. Matthead is absolutely right asking "If Poles are so confident about the Polish nationality of Polish Copernicus from Poland, why do they have to mention it so often?"
That said, it should be added that the Copernicus nationality dispute is extremely boring for anyone but Poles and a tiny group of nationalist Germans. I have had to do with Polish students who knew exactly one thing about Copernicus, namely that he was "Polish, not German". Germans on the other hand, tend to know that he was an astronomer, some of the cleverer ones might also remember that he found out about earth circling the sun; but they would be hard pressed to decide which country he was from, probably utterly confused by the Latin suffix to his last name. (It's never used without in German.) ;-)
Asking "was Copernicus German or Polish" makes about as much sense as asking "was Charlemagne French or German". The lifetimes of both easily predate the emergence of modern one-nation states that we inevitably have in the back of our minds when we use the words "French", "German" or "Polish". Is that really so difficult to understand or accept? BTW, there is a Polish-German committee of scholars called the "Copernicus Group". In this group, there is a tradition that once a year, a German member presents a paper with new evidence that he was Polish, and vice versa. ;-)
Finally, I noticed that in the current version there is a footnote pointing to a section of the talk page. If I recall correctly, there is a rule against linking to other namespaces from articles, does this not include talk pages? Even if it does not, I feel that the discussion over his nationality should be summarized (not continued, of course) in the article itself rather than elsewhere. This might also help to render future edit wars in the lead obsolete.--Thorsten1 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To me the issue is simple: the country with which Copernicus was most closely associated, and in which he spent just about all of his life, was the Kingdom of Poland. Hence, he was Polish by citizenship, by allegiance, and by loyalty. Why can't we have the article reflect that prominently?
If I understand your argument, you consider all people born between 1795 (third partition of Poland) and 1918 (end of World War I) in the ethnic group of Poles as either Austrian, Russian or German. No polish nation in this period? [Banach] and [Smoluchowski] as austrian scientists, [Sienkiewicz] a russian writer? I don't agree with this statement. There were Poles at that time, even without a Polish state. And there were always (at least until 1945) strong groups of Germans whithin the Polish territory, especially in the cities.--dago 14:07, 9 February 2006 (CET)
The world changed quite a bit between the 16th and 19th centuries, so the comparison is not relevant. In the 19th century ethnic nationality assumed tremendous importance, which it quite simply did not yet have in Copernicus' time. Balcer 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Balcer, if you deny well defined nationalities in the 16th century, I understand your objection. For Copernicus himself this was certainly no matter of debate. Also the conflict between the Teutonic order and the Polish kingdom can hardly be seen as an ethnical struggle between germanic and slawic culture, just because none of the involved parties thought in categories of nationality. But those who insist on Copernicus being Polish and nothing else but Polish just argue for him in a formal-political way, while for other people they apply other definitions - just as it seems useful for the Polish point of view. That seems hardly convincing to me. I prefer an ethnical and cultural definition of nationality for a period, where ethnical homogeneous countries were hard to find. This makes the nationality often unclear, not only sometimes someone belongs to different cultures. But it is - in my opinion - the only way to use the term nationality before the late 18th century. --dago 19:11, 10 February 2006 (CET)
When I call Copernicus Polish, I call him that since he was a loyal citizen of the Polish Kingdom of the time, no more no less. I agree fully that at this time Polish or German ethnicities was not something people worried too much about. It was still a time where most people thought of themselves primarily as members of Christendom. However, calling Copernicus a European is just stating the obvious and does not convey any significant information. Balcer 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Following this "does not convey any significant information" logic, those who insist on making "Polish astronomer" the synonym for Copernicus then consider his career as astronomer as neither obvious nor significant, as well as the claimed nationality. I beg to differ with the astronomer part. As "Polish" is concerned, I'm looking forward to the day when you and other followers of the "military loyalty determines nationality" theory call themselves "Northatlantics or "Natonians" - as this is what citizens of NATO member states have to be called then, even when they were born as "Warsawpactists". As I understand
Royal Prussia was not in a military alliance with Poland, it was an integral part of Poland (for one example of a map reflecting this, see [15]). Balcer 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • there is hardly any evidence for a Polish ethnicity
The article does not state Copernicus was ethnically Polish (he was Polish by citizenship). Balcer 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • only weak evidence for a Polish nationality ("1911 Britannica and 2003 Senate of Poland say so")
Current edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, the most respected encyclopedia in the English language, says so (see [16]). Balcer 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • he is listed in 3 Polish categories instead of the international scientific ones
We can legitimately argue which category is the best but please, be reasonable and do not combine in a single edit category changes and highly controversial changes to the lead. Balcer 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • yet any attempt to remove this claim is fought against by a few
At least the Polish name, with which this article was headlined until a few weeks ago, is no more in that prominent place. I still don't know why the English Wikipedia, in addition to the well-known Latin name Copernicus used himself, needs to list two selected national names, of which at least one was not used during his lifetime? --Matthead 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Current edition of Encyclopedia Britannica [17] also gives the Polish name, so I don't see why Wikipedia cannot as well. Balcer 04:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Balcer! Perhaps we come closer to an understanding: I would prefer no nationality remark in the head. I'm still not convinced, that there's evidence for a national statement in Copernicus' life. You interpret his career in such a way - anyway. Other facts could be interpreted in the way, that he was a German. So with the same right, anyone can call him a German astronomer - but there seems to be nobody, who asks for that. If we could all admit, that there's no clear statement possible in that case and that he was exposed to several cultural influences, I'm satisfied. These different influences should be noted in the article. The question, if he was Polish is at least disputable. And that isn't due to some German nationalists. --dago 17:02, 10 February 2006 (CET).
That Copernicus was "most closely associated" with the Kingdom of Poland is simply not true. He lived in Warmia, a bishoperic which accepted the Polish king as liege lord, but was not part of the Polish kingdom (for example the bishop of Warmia didn't participate in the meetings of Polish estates but insisted in privat audience). --dago 14:07, 9 February 2006 (CET)
As was common in feudal times, the arrangements between lord and liege were very varied, which does not change the fact that on every single historical map of Europe from that time that I have come across Royal Prussia is colored as part of Poland. There must be a reason for that. Balcer 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If the color indicates the fact, that the Polish king was liege lord, the coloring seems appropriate. However, the whole Teutonic order was forced to accept the Polish king as liege lord some years later. Has the order become Polish by that? --dago 18:45, 10 February 2006 (CET)
Please refer to maps like these: [18] and [19]. Notice that Royal Prussia is marked as an integral part of Poland (same color), while the lands of the Teutonic Knights are marked with a similar but different color, indicating a less close relationship. Balcer 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You still try to prove, that Warmia (in the maps it's called Ermeland) was part of Poland. I don't agree, but even if you're right: I doubt that Copernicus made a decision against Germany and in favor of Poland by that. His uncle was bishop there, and he granted him a lifelong salary as a cleric in the canonry of Frauenburg. I think this is enough to explain his choice. BTW bishop Watzenrode was ordained against the wishes of the Polish king Casimir IV, who prefered his son Friedrich, to incorporate the prince-bishoperic to the Polish empire. Watzerode fought for independence from both, Teutonic order and Polish king. The bishoperic was exempt by that time. If you were right, Casimir would have had nothing to do in this affair. --dago, 17:09, 11 February 2006 (CET)
As to whether he was an ethnic Pole or an ethnic German, I could not care less. Balcer 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick interjection: "[...] he was Polish by citizenship, by allegiance, and by loyalty. As to whether he was an ethnic Pole or an ethnic German, I could not care less." I can well understand that. What amazes me, though: If one is really so indifferent about someone y else's ethnicity, how can one be so hot-headed about their citizenship at the same time? Isn't this a bit like saying "I don't care about the contents, but don't mess about with me about the form"? This come as across as a somewhat unauthentic. --Thorsten1 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus, Prussian Mathematician (Prussus or Borussus Mathematicus)

Here some samples on portraits:

  • 1597 Theodor de Bry [20] Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1620 by Boissard Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1655 by Pierre Gassendi Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaeus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1670 J. J. Vogel Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis Prussus Mathematicus Celeberritus
  • 1680 Vollaine Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathemat.
  • End 1600's in Krakow Nicolaus Copernicus Torunensis Canonicus Warmiensis
  • 1720 Nicolaus Copernic ... Thorn Ville de La Prusse Royal

The Copernicus manuscript went with Rheticus and on December 16, 1603 the following desciption was entered by Jacobus Christmannus:

  • Nicolai Copernick Canonici Varmiensis in Borussia Germaninae mathematici... [21].

== Thorn/Thorun Nicolaus Copernicus' City of Birth: ==

Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen
Hartknoch features his last residence, the city of Thorn, in his book Altes und Neues Preussen

MG 2/17/2006, 3/14/2006

Copernicus born in Thorn, Prussia, worked and died in Ermland-Warmia, Prussia

According to Zedlers Universal-Lexicon (circa 1730-50)

  • Copernicus ..ward zu Thoren in Preussen gebo(h)ren) .. starb in Frauenburg in Preussen.Copernicus was born in Prussia - worked in Prussia - died in Prussia.
  • Rheticus Reise nach Preussen zu Copernicus und sein Aufenthalt in Frauenburgtranlation: Rheticus' travel to Prussia to Copernicus and his stay in Frauenburg Book by leopold Prowe, 1883, reprint 1967.
  • Duden: Nikolaus Kopernikus modern German Lexikon: http://www.duden.de/ type in suchen: Kopernikus - result: der dt. Astronom (dt= abbreviation for deutsch, german)
  • Salem Press Book Published in 2005 with Copernicus Bio [23]Great Lives from History Nicolaus Copernicus, Christina J. Moose]
  • Frauenburg, Prussia Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher-Taufen-Heiraten-Tote- Church records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since 1631 [24]

Thorn, Prussia Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher- Taufen Heiraten Tote-Church Records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since c 1600 [25] [26]

Thorn, Thorunensis, birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus was an independent city state, state republic Referces: Stadtstaat or Stadt Republik [27][28][29] MG 2/6/2006 Ermland-Warmia had received from emperor Charles IV souverainty by Golden Bulla and the title of Reichsfuerstentum Prince-Bishoprip [30]. This lasted until 1929.


Ermland Warmia History on Catholic Encyclopedia]

MG 2/24/2006



You really must start using modern references, as by quoting 18th-century (and earlier) materials you are doing what amounts to original research and that is against Wikipedia policy. Have you even read Wikipedia:No original research page yet?
If it is really so obvious and well accepted that Copernicus was Prussian, there should be dozens of books written after, say, 1980 that you could quote to demonstrate your point. The fact that you have not cited any modern works yet hugely diminishes your credibility. If you refuse to provide modern sources, you must expect your changes to be reverted. Balcer 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for correct information one goes to the original sources, that is primary sources. MG 2/17/2006

If you are doing research, yes. But on Wikipedia original research is not allowed! I see you are totally unable to grasp this. Please READ Wikipedia:No original research. Balcer 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is my version of Nicolaus Copernicus: [31]

Why don't YOU, Balcer, read the section :

Primary and secondary sources Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I will not re-re-re- insert my information to the Nicolaus Copernicus article, I will let you do it.

MG 2/17/2006

I can assure you that if you presented a truly valid primary source, I would have no objections. Thus, if you found a personal letter by Copernicus in which he proclaims that he wants nothing to do with Poland and is proud of his German heritage, for example, that would be fine with me.
But what you are presenting are secondary sources from later than 100 years after Copernicus' death. Then you assign to them your own interpretation which is original research.
I repeat my simple request. If your thesis about Copernicus being Prussian is so crystal clear and widely accepted by scholars, why are you unable to cite modern sources which would support your thesis? Is it just that you can't be bothered, or because they do not exist? If you are unable to find modern sources, please say so. Balcer 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, a group of you seem to follow the erronious Jan Czynski biographies of Copernicus, who mainly used his imagination to make money at his refuge in 1847 Paris, talking and writing Kopernik et ses travaux and who got several French writers to imitate him?

Like Sca, who tried for a while but gave up on your group, quoted,'you will not let facts stand in your way at all'.

MG 2/17/2006

It still doesn't prove that Prussia was not just one of many Polish lands.Space Cadet 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course - the whole (Wikipedia) World turns around Poles. MG

De Revolutionibus Orbium Wikipediensum! Space Cadet 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For centuries Copernicus is known as Prussian, was born, lived and died in Prussia.

I posted a list of Copernicus' portraits that for centuries are inscribed as Borussus or Prussus Mathematicus, that is : Prussian Mathematician His own signatures are all with N(icolaus) none with M.

A number of actual entries as to German National have been posted.

Wikipedia shows reference to circa 1720 Zedlers Universal Lexicon, showing that he was born in Thorn, Preussen, worked and died in Frauenburg, Preussen.

Yet, Wikipedia entries are by a group of people consistently reverted to :Copernicus, Polish Astronomer

But- n o portrait, n o signature - n o t h i n g - has been posted at all, that proofs him to be Polish (other than 20th century assumptions and a bunch of internet mirror copy sites)

Lets see earlier historical portraits with actual Polish writings and/or signatures by Copernicus. Please post them here including dates, artists/authors:

MG

Few points. First, Polish was not used much as a written language before the second half of the 16th century, so by your standard nobody can be proven to be a Pole before then, which is obviously absurd. Second, we cannot call Copernicus a "Prussian" astronomer, because at the time Royal Prussia was a province, not significant enough to be considered a nation by any standard. To convince me otherwise, please provide me with a list of Wikipedia biography articles where the nationality of the person is given as Prussian (I could not find any). Third, Copernicus is considered Polish mainly because of his citizenship, not his ethnicity. Do you deny that for his whole life he was a loyal citizen of the Kingdom of Poland?

Finally, let me bring your attention to Wikipedia:No original research policy. It states that we as Wikipedians cannot conduct our own research, and so we cannot really "prove" anything. Instead, we must go with what the most reliable sources tell us. And those, for example Encyclopedia Britannica, unambiguously consider Copernicus Polish. Please, take a long, careful look at this Encyclopedia Britannica article. Then either accept what it says, or explain to me how that venerable encylopedia got taken over by totally unreasonable Polish nationalists :). Balcer 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Prussian and Polish

Calgacus made a suggestion :'maybe you could go to talk page and negotiate "Prussian and Polish" - saying "now claimed Polish" is hardly going to be acceptable'

Calgacus, reading through the enormous amount of discussion and changes one finds a large number of different suggestions and different tries. For a while 'European' seem ok, also a reference that nationality at that time cannot be established centuries later. A link to Nationality was next to 'Polish astronomer', it is now removed.

Copernicus was never Polish and was for centuries known as Prussian and German. Therefore it is wrong and untrue to classify Copernicus in Wikipedia as Polish, that is Identity- and Cultural Theft.

Your suggestion 'Prussian and Polish' Prussian/Polish etc just to appease the large croud of Polish Wikipedia entries, has all been tried before and people finally just give in.

Lets see if anyone else has any answer to your suggestion or constructive ideas left. MG 2/5/2006

Well, you guys need to sort this out. It's sad that the main edits on the page of such a great astronomer are focused primarily on a nationality. Anyways, even if German was his first language, he was still from Polish-controlled territory with Polish ancestry ... German-speakers in late medieval Poland were not, after all, colonists, but naturalized slavs or invited immigrants. Ideally, his nationality would be omitted, but that's unrealistic. Polish wikipedians are certain he is Polish, and perceive attempts to omit "Polish" as tacit denials of his Polishness by people who may or may not be "German nationalists". On the other hand, their opponents think Polish wikipedians are being nationalistic and distorting history. We gotta find a middle line here! Would there be anything wrong with Polish-Prussian, or Prussian Polish? In the situation as it is, omitting "Polish" isn't an option, and you're simply wasting your time reverting it. - Calgacus 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, I agree with much of what you wrote here. However Copernicus did not have Polish ancestry and where he lived certainly was not Polish-controlled territory. The Krakow relative lived in Krakow, when it was a Hanse city. Hanse seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia's article [[32] but you can still find a number of people working there, Conrad Celtes, Veit Stoss, Haller printers, Hans Duerer (brother of Albrecht), Hans von Kulmbach and many more, none of them Polish. The reference to Balthasar Behem Kodex [33] seem to also have disappeared. This Kodex recorded the city guilds of Krakow at that time c 1500- a municipal document- look closely and you will find it is written in German. Quen of Poland Elisabeth of Habsburg), daughter of a Holy Roman Empire emperor, was married to Casimir IV, thus the grandson of the emperor Albrecht, great-grandson of emperor Sigismund was Sigismund I. Sigismund and the other Jagiellonians where Lithuanians, who happened to be kings of Poland as well.

So no - there was really nothing Polish about Copernicus - MG

well, what whatever the status of Prussia at the time, he was from the territory of modern Poland, and that's always going to be enough to persuade some people. Like I said, German speakers in late medieval Poland were not colonists. Krakow is the heart of Poland, and no matter the main language there, it has always been a Polish city. Western slavic rulers were often quite enamoured by German culture, but that didn't mean they stopped being western Slavs. There was nothing English about Richard Coeur de Lion, but he is nevertheless regarded as English, and as one of England's greatest heroes at that. But anyways, you have to be realistic and recognize that the Polish wikipedians aren't going to accept your arguments, and you'll have to offer them an acceptable compromise if you want to end the revert war. The page is listed on the Polish wikipedians notice board, so you're guaranteed to get reverted very quickly unless you offer an acceptable solution. Polish wikipedians perceive a lot of anti-Polishness on wiki, and your efforts are going to be perceived that way unless you demonstrate good faith. - Calgacus 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... So: adding that he was Prussian/German is ok, while adding that he was Polish is sign of nationalism? Hmmmm...
As for other MG arguments, Krakow was capitol of Poland, so claiming it was not Polish is somehow... well... strange, at least. Szopen 11:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually no Szopen, MG did not claim, that Krakow was not somehow 'Polish'. MG stated, that Krakow at that time (Copernicus family, Imperial Habsburg-Jagiello intermarriages, Landshuter Wedding etc) was also a Hanse city with a large number of German citizens, who kept their business/guild documents in German language. It was a requirement to become a burgher in a Hanse city, one had to be of German language. There were cities, which had different sections with different law systems. For example, an Altstadt (Old City section) often had diferent government than a Neustadt (New City) of the same city. By the way after the Hanse days, Krakow was governed by an arch bishop, it was a Prince-Bishopric. And for those Polish Patriots, who claim, that Krakow has always been Polish- not so either. Krakow was actually conquered by Polans from none-Poles around 1000 AD. MG 2/7/2006

MG, I will try address your points one by one. First, yes, Krakow was Hanse city. It was also Polish capitol. I'm not sure about German reqirements, surely it was the case in Prussia/Pomerellia, but can't say whether it was the case in Krakow. As for Krakow being governed by arch-bishop and being prince-bishopric, well, I was a bit surprised. Before I will say it is utter fantasy, could you point me to the source of your information? According to my info, it was not. As for conquest by Polans in 1000,well, for the date we have two version (999 as written by Kosmas who wrote that Mieszko I conquered it (BTW it was here once one German contributor who insisted that Mieszko is invented name; I had very interesting, though quite frustrating in the end, discussion.) - Mieszko I was already dead in 999! - or some date earlier, IIRC in 979 or so.). Of course, Polans (Polonians, Polenis, etc their name in contemporary sources differs from one document to another) you could say were non-Poles too, because Polish nation was created as effect of merging of many west-Slavic tribes, with two main components: Polans (Greater Poland), Lesser Poland Vistulans (name arteficial) plus to lesser degree Masovians, even less Silesian tribes etc. Saying POLES conquered it from NONPOLES in 1000 is like saying that Germans conquered some territory from Bavarians or something like this.

You are of course right about different laws even in different part of the cities. What kept the country together was the idea of loyalty to the Polish crown, represented by current Polish king. BTW, I've scanned the documents (posted on Warmia/Ermeland) mentioning the text of oath of Nicolai Copernick. I asked Halibutt to translate them. Zip contains photos of original documents and transliterations. Szopen 09:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good suggestion/try by Matthead: [34]

It lasted all of 9 minutes  : [35]!!! MG 2/5/2006


Proposed solution

I proposed this as a solution:

Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus, Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik; February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was a Polish astronomer, mathematician, physician, jurist, administrator and economist, although the exact nature of his nationality can sometimes be a controversial topic [36]. His greatest legacy is the development of a scientifically-useful heliocentric (Sun-centered) theory of the solar system."

Space Cadet reverted it, but he seems to be hardcore. What do others think? - Calgacus 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the whole nationality issue should not be the first thing that is mentioned about Copernicus - even though that seems exactly what some can't live without. My proposal is neutral to me, and focused on scientific work. It was completely rv, by 3 notorious persons. Probably they don't even read, just rv. This afternoon, I've looked up some German-Polish cooperations. First surprise, such things exist. Second surprise: none call him German (okay, hardly a surprise). Third surprise: none call him Polish either - big surprise. Seems there are some Polish "traitors" [37] in the real world who betray their people and forsake their hero? But luckily there is this "Polish Wikipedians' notice board", they'll take care... I wonder how many countries have a similar "Police"? --Matthead 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica seems to feel very strongly that he was Polish. Please see: [38]. I hope this settles the debate. Balcer 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica also felt very strongly that he was Polish even though Poland didn't exist when it was published [39]. It seems that reasonable German people don't have any problems with his nationality as well [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47].

So if everyone all over the world agrees that he was Polish (except some Wikipedians of course), what is there to prove?--SylwiaS | talk 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I would accept versions: "Polish", "Polish (though sometimes debated)" "Polish-German" or no nationality mentioned at all Szopen 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't write in the leads of articles about ethnicity but nationality. His nationality was 100% Polish, and it's even difficult to determine his German ethnicity. His grandpa was already born in Toruń, and supported Poland in Thirteen Years War. Who was his grandma from Watzenrode's side? Copernicus' blood might be 1/4 or 1/8 German. We don't really know that. But then we never write that in any article unless at least one of the person's parents were immigrants. For example we don't have Józef Haller de Hallenburg, Władysław Anders, or Juliusz Zulauf as Polish-German, but we have Józef Unrug as a German-born Polish naval officer. And really, I seriously hope that this whole person's-blood-idea is nothing but an unpleasant memory. Otherwise, how could Germans claim Albert Einstein as a German?--SylwiaS | talk 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear SylwiaS, above you can find my remark on the idea of nationality against ethnicity: If wikipedia just refers to the citizenship of a existing state, there are no Poles between 1795 and 1918 - and you will find a lot of ethnically Polish people in the armies of Austro-Hungria and the German-Prussian empire during the first world war. And, weren't they still Poles? For the parents of Copericus: His mother was clearly german. His grandfather is first documented in Krakow, but the family name indicates a silesian origin. He was most likely of german descent (the word "blood" remains me a little bit on the Third Reich vocabulary...), but this is not completely sure. So his ancetry was at least 1/2 german through his mother. Albert Einstein is a different case: His descent was german, he held swiss citizenship until he died and temporarily german and american citizenship. He had his most fruitful period in Berlin as he said and prefered german language during his whole lifetime. After 1933 he clearly distanced himself from everything related to official Germany. In the headline of the wikipedia article there's no nationality mentioned at all. --dago 19:47, 10 February 2006 (CET)
There is a difference between being a man without a country and being an emigrant. Those people were still loyal to Poland and considered themselves Polish even if the country didn't exist on maps. There is a difference in being a descendant of immigrants in 3rd generation. If someone emigrates to the USA, their children aren't Polish, German etc by any stretch. They become American. Copernicus didn't have to be Polish. He could have moved to Holy Roman Empire, or even to Ducal Prussia. But he didn't. He preferred to live in Poland, being loyal to the Kingdom and Polish kings. He fought against German Teutonic Order and strongly supported further incorporation of Royal Prussia into Poland. He called Teutonic Order hostile neighbours. He knew well where he lived and who he was. He spoke Polish, German, Latin, Greek etc. He promoted further resettling of Royal Prussia by ethnic Poles. He was considered as a Pole by his contemporaries in Poland and abroad. His mother 100% German? Can you source it? How his father's moving to Kraków from Silesia makes him German? BTW Einstein's descent was not German but Jewish. --SylwiaS | talk 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
SylwiaS: "Einstein's descent was not German but Jewish". Which was mutually exclusive, of course. ;) I wonder how this is supposed to relate to your statement above: "If someone emigrates to the USA, their children aren't Polish, German etc by any stretch. They become American." So a second-generation Polish or German immigrant in the USA is not Polish or German "by any stretch", but strictly American - whereas a twentieth-generation (?) Jewish "immigrant" in Germany is still of Jewish - and nothing but Jewish - descent? That's strikingly in line with certain theories that were held in high esteem in Germany about three generations ago.
Also, I'm impressed with your detailed knowledge of Copernicus' views on politics and his personal identity. Seems like you have been allowed a glimpse into his very head. If so, you must know an awful lot about his scientific interests and discoveries as well. I urge you to contribute that to the article, because I suppose that is what non-Polish (including most German) users of Wikipedia will mostly be looking for. And not if his mother was 100% or 45.14% or 0.27% of this ethnicity or another. (This is not only addressed to SylwiaS, of course.) --Thorsten1 10:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear SylawiaS, first in the case of Einstein: Jewish and German was not necissarily a contradiction, there were jewish, christian and atheist Germans, as in other countries. Second: Silesia was politically and ethnically german at that time. Third: Copernicus lived, as I pointed out, in a territory, which seeked for political independence from both the Teutonic order and the kingdom of Poland. The bishoperic of Warmia was ruled by Lucas Watzenrode, Copernicus uncle. The bishoperic accepted the polish king as liege lord to separate from the Teutonic order, but insisted in the same way in special treatment and pointed out no to be part of the Polish kingdom. To see this as a national statemant isn't appropriate. I'm sure, Copernicus never worried about his nationality. All those, who fought on the side of the Teutonic order, were germans? Okay, the nationality of his father is not clear, perhaps he can be considered as polish. But perhaps not, as in all trade business, germans throughout the Hanse played an important role. And both, his mothers and his fathers site were engaged in trade.
I'd like to point out, that on the german wikipedia, Copernicus is not claimed a german but an european astronomer, which is certainly right. I don't won't to prove, that he was only german ore more german than anything else. But by the statement, he had been only Polish, we loose a lot of important influence on him. He lived in the area of conflict between german and polish influences. This should become clear in the article. But it seems that some in the discussion want to claim him as Polish nationalist, which is totaly ridiculous. I propose, to mention no nationality in the headline and to add a section, where the different contributions to his personality are listed. -- dago,9:37h (CET) 11/02/2006.
There is a difference between Jews, Christian, and atheists. One cannot be ethnically Christian or an atheist, while people can be of Jewish ethnicity. I didn't say that Jewish and German contradict each other, only that Einstein was of Jewish ethnicity, and of German nationality. His nationality isn't written in the lead of the article about him, because he had three nationalities: German, Swiss, and American, and wikipedians there decided that it was too complicated for a lead, but his ethnicity isn't written there, because there is a rule that in the leads we write about nationality, not ethnicity. Copernicus ethnicity was mixed, while his nationality was only one, so there's no reason for not giving it in the lead of the article.--SylwiaS | talk 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There are articles which state ethnicities in the lead, as a nationality based on citizenship is often not appropriate (no Czechs before 1918, no Poles from 1795-1918, no Croates, no Serbs, no Italians etc. for long periods). It seems a bit arbitrary to me, to ignore all aspects of ethnicity in the XVI century and to exclusively define nationality based on ethnicity 200 years later. Anyway, there is no general rule for such categorisation in the lead. We pointed out that the exact political relationship between Polish Kingdom and Warmia was a matter of dispute and even of war (War of the Priests). For further details see Szopen's and my talk page. Even if we consider Warmia as a Polish province, there's no reason to define nationality exclusively on citizenship. But if we did that, why would it be unacceptable to mention something like "german descent"? The best solution, however, would be to focus on the relevant information, which is not Copernicus' nationality. I explained why Sock puppets etc..--Dagox 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask about the currect state of this dispute? I see that a number of variations have been tried. Are the sides very far apart here? -Will Beback 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Very far, this goes on for two years, maybe? The separate article on Copernius Nationality was deleted recently. That did not solve the issue, of course. One side insists that he (and the places he lived) expressively have to be labeled Polish, nothing else is accepted. Cities with English names have to be spelled Polish, too. Any neutral proposals are denied - see my last proposal which got reverted without being read - see Synopsis paragraph. Four users did so before. Polish users have organized themselves to make sure this and other articles have their POV. --Matthead 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Matthead is misrepresenting the current state of the article. For example, the article uses: "Toruń (Hanse city Thorn)" and "Frombork (Frauenburg)" when first mentioning the two most important cities connected with Copernicus, so clearly the German names for these places are accepted. As for using the Polish spelling of Kraków, that is what the Wikipedia article on that city uses. If User:Matthead does not like this, he should express his grivances there.
User:Matthead is being reverted because he insists on removing references to Copernicus' Polish nationality from the lead, going against such reputable references as Encyclopedia Britannica (see EB article on Copernicus). The usefulness of the rest of his edit varies; I have made an effort to include those of his changes which merit it. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about User:Matthead, who at least once simply reverted wholesale to his version, overwriting my useful alterations, such as a picture added from Commons showing the burial place of Copernicus. Balcer 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the deletion of frequent mentions of Polish/Poland: these were mentioned 13 times when I stated my earlier count above. The words German/y did not appear at all, even tough they would fit in some places, just to give some balance. As city names and Britannica are concerned: it also says "Frauenburg, East Prussia", as pointed out before. Do you select what you like from EB, do you accept it fully, or not at all? Please state so - and move the Frombork article, if you choose "Polish astronomer" and continue to cite EB. As lost changes are concerned - these would happen less often if people would edit only sections rather than the whole article - but this requires agreeing on a short an neutral top first, which I can hardly imagine seeing how any attempts are crushed. I've included changes of others in my second edit today, BTW, despite having few time to waste with repeated work. And its quite remarkable how this very NPOV User:Molobo acts. He wouldn't have noticed his removal of the protection probably not even when IP-vandals started again, I guess. What if German users would behave like some Poles do on Wikipedia? --Matthead 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But the article does prominently mention the German name Frauenburg, so I really don't see what your issue with this is. Still, if you want to know, I respect Encyclopedia Britannica in this matter, and if somebody did want to use the German name, I would not revert him (of course I am speaking only for myself). So, if the only way to resolve this dispute is to adhere strictly to Britannica's standard, I will be perfectly happy to accept this.
If you want to give any credibility to your approval of EB articles you should better start promoting EB's stance on Frauenburg actively, too. --Matthead 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, I am glad you made this comment, because it offers a window into your thinking (notwithstanding your mushy comments about the wonderfullness of the expanded EU). Your whole approach of "I will give you Copernicus' Polishness if you will give me the German name for Frauenburg" is, quite simply, distasteful. It implies you are not interested in historical truth, but in horsetrading between competing nationalisms. For shame. Balcer 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Distasteful? Horsetrading? Stop making allegations like these. It is you who has double standards, not me making trade offers. --Matthead 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The article also mentions Copernicus' name in German added by Piotr because Matthead whined that it wasn't there. But it seems that for Matthead nothing will fine until the information of Copernicus' Polish nationality disappears.--SylwiaS | talk 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Watch your language! And yes, I do not tolerate POV claims, no matter how often they are repeated.--Matthead 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Balcer, you and others did not read the previous section so I will post the list here again. For several centuries portraits of Nicolaus Copernicus identify him as Prussian Mathematician, see sample list below (they are all on internet).

A reference to Zedlers Universal Lexicon from 1720, describing him as born and died in Preussen (that means Prussia) is also posted.

You all have been asked to post actual proof of his Polishness, but all all of you ever come up with is that a 20th century Lexicon (and a bunch of mirror sites) are classifying him as Polish. You gang up repeatedly on Matthead or anyone else who dares to question your one and only acceptable description of Copernicus having been nothing but Polish.

Nicolaus Copernicus' Prussus or Borussus Mathematicus

Here some samples on portraits:

  • 1597 Theodor de Bry [48] Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1620 by Boissard Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1655 by Pierre Gassendi Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaeus Borussus Mathematicus
  • 1670 J. J. Vogel Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis Prussus Mathematicus Celeberritus
  • 1680 Vollaine Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaus Borussus Mathemat.
  • End 1600's in Krakow Nicolaus Copernicus Torunensis Canonicus Warmiensis
  • 1720 Nicolaus Copernic ... Thorn Ville de La Prusse Royal

To the comment about not using Polish language earlier .. well - if people used German language, that means they were Germans. If they would have been Polish, they would have used Polish language - as simple as that. MG 2/7/2006

We are talking past each other. No one is denying that Copernicus was from Royal Prussia. The article says that prominently. It is also clear that Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland, so Copernicus was a citizen of Poland. Why is that so hard to understand? Are you completely incapable of understanding that Royal Prussia was a Polish province?
Incidentally, it always amuses me to hear speculations that Copernicus might not have known any Polish, given that, for example, he spent four years at Jagiellonian University attended by Polish students. If he really did not know any Polish before then, he must have picked it up there, given that he was an intelligent human being, and had had no problem learning other languages (Latin, Greek, presumably Italian etc.). So we can reasonably assume that he spoke Polish on some level. As for not having letters in Polish by him, it has already been explained that Polish did not become a literary language until the second half of the 16th century. Balcer 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Balcer, anyone insisting to only call Copernicus Polish shows that they are completely incapable of understanding that Copernicus was Prussian but he was n o t Polish. As earlier versions of the Wikipedia article Nicolaus Copernicus had stated, you cannot now determine a nationality. For centuries he was known and recorded (see list of portraits) by people from different countries as born in Prussia, worked in Prussia died in Prussia. 20/21th century Nationalists want to change that to Polish and are disregarding the completely different Imperial/Royal/Papal government situation of Europe for a thousand years prior. Western Prussia, Royal Prussia, Warmia, Ducal Prussia were for a time connected to the crown of Poland, but they were not an integral part of Poland.

I wonder why historical atlases disagree with that (check [49] and [50]). On those maps Royal Prussia is marked clearly as an integral part of Poland. Can you offer any explanation for that? Balcer 14:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Dear Balcer,

The two maps you have posted here, are clearly n o t maps from 1547. First of all, they are both one and the same . They are English language maps, either from England, perhaps from US America. From the looks of it, they are probably made early 1900's, maybe 1880's or so. They are politically motivated maps and are made centuries after the facts.

MG 2/14/2006

Well, I am not saying they are the best maps available, by any means, but they do reflect the modern view of this issue (as far as I know, mainstream historical research has not changed its basic conclusions concerning Royal Prussia in the past 100 years). Sure, the maps are about 100 years old, but the advantage of that is that they are in the public domain and available online (maps from newer atlases are copyrighted and generally not viewable online). If you have links to better, more modern historical maps from reputable sources which could be enlightening here, please provide them.
Still, I don't understand why you would consider maps produced in 1547 generally superior. Would you not agree that historical knowledge does make advances, and that historical maps produced by later, more modern scholars are better than Renaissance maps? Even more importantly, why would you consider maps made in the US or England biased? To me it seems that, on the contrary, maps made in those countries of territories involved in shared Polish-German history will in principle be more neutral than maps produced in either Germany or Poland.
Finally, I think you have not yet understood the key principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research. According to the policies presented there, current, most up-to-date research must always be used. Trying to prove anything using an original map from 1547, to overturn results presented on historical maps produced by modern historians, would be an excellent example of original research.
At any rate, if you want to look at a modern map which proves my point (and is perfectly consistent with the older maps I presented), please take a look under [51]. Balcer 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This euroatlas is also not an actual map. Its just something made up by someone, similar to Space Cadet's maps. He loves to make up maps etc but he certainly does not have any qualifications as a cartographer. You do not seem to understand that internet is full of made-up stuff, like the stuff from Space Cadet.

All these maps I am posting are on internet. There is nothing original research about any of it. On the other hand all of you and your companions hugh amounts of input is contrary to any English language books by any noted historians and can at best only be classified as 'very original research' and is no doubt meant to thoughrowly confuse people who have absolutely no knowledge of the area.

Here is another real map showing Ermland -Varmia and Frauenburg, at that time spelled Frawenburg, near Braunsberg and Heilsberg, south-west of Samland. This map from 1629 [52] has been in Frauenburg and is apparently still there today, going by the website url. MG 2/14/2006

Look, I am doing my best to find some modern maps to satisfy you, which obviously is not easy, as not too many historical atlases are online. I am not even sure if I feel like doing it anymore, since you always find an excuse to dismiss what I found and fall back on your 16th and 17th century maps. Now these maps are:
1. Unreadable. I am sorry but to properly interpret these maps for a layman is not easy (that Wikipedia:No original research issue again)
2. How do you know that these maps are not biased as well? Surely people in the 16th and 17th century wanted to make political and propaganda points. How do we know, for example, that these maps were not made at the request of the rulers of Brandenburg?
3. Using 16th and 17th century maps to prove points, in defiance of modern maps, is quite simply original research. Please, please, use maps published by modern historians to prove your point. If it is really so obvious and clear that Royal Prussia was not a part of Poland, there should be plenty of maps in modern atlases illustrating that fact.
I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere. If you continue to hawk your Renaissance maps and refuse to supply reliable modern sources, I don't see any point in further discussion. Balcer 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

City and University of Krakow at time of Nicolaus Copernicus

To the fact, that Copernicus went to Krakow school, you apparently did not check the situation in Krakow at that time either, so here I am posting it again:

The Krakow relative lived in Krakow, when it was a Hanse city. Hanse seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia's article [ [53] but you can still find a number of people working there, Conrad Celtes, Veit Stoss, Haller printers, Hans Duerer (brother of Albrecht), Hans von Kulmbach and many more, none of them Polish. The reference to Balthasar Behem Kodex [54] seems to also have disappeared. This Kodex recorded the city guilds of Krakow at that time c 1500- a municipal document- look closely and you will find it is written in German. Queen of Poland Elisabeth of Habsburg), daughter of a Holy Roman Empire emperor, was married to Casimir IV, thus the grandson of the emperor Albrecht, great-grandson of emperor Sigismund was Sigismund I. Sigismund and the other Jagiellonians where Lithuanians, who happened to be kings of Poland as well.

Had you read this earlier entry and looked up the medieval history of Krakow, you would have known, that he did not need Polish language at all to have studied there. And the teacher Albert Blar most likely taught in Latin, did not teach Copernicus astronomy, but may have discussed it with him. And the teachers had recently come from Imperial Prague university, precisely because they spoke German (and that means they were German) and the Czech faction was making problems. You may also look into the Krakow history, because it was (at least in the 16/17th century) ruled by George Radziwill, aPrince-Bishop, just like Salzburg or many other territories in Europe, who were ruled by an archbishop, who was a prince of the empire.

MG 2/8/2006

I fully agree that German was in common use in Krakow, while the primary language of instruction at the university was Latin. My whole argument was that Copernicus must have encountered plenty of Polish students at Jagiellonian University and it is quite likely that he picked up at least some knowledge of the Polish language there, assuming he did not know any before. This is simply common sense. If you put an intelligent person in close contact with people speaking another language, there is a good chance that he or she will learn at least some of it. Do you deny that there were many Polish speaking students at Jagiellonian University? Balcer 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, There were also a lot of Polish teachers at UJ, and Kopernik ha dmany Polish friends (e.g. B. Wapowski).Szopen 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The teacher part, Szopen, that's probably true and Copernicus did help Bernard Wapowski by providing him data on North Eastern Poland and Western Prussia, while in Krakow, where they worked with the printer Florian Unger. Wapowski got started by having contact with many cartographers in Europe. This again goes to the above mentioned establishment of a great number of tradesmen and artists working in Krakow during its close relationship to the empire and its Hanse time. After that time, people left and city and university deteriorated. MG 2/16/2006

I am glad that there is agreement, that German language was in common use in Krakow. And yes, laguage of instruction at university was Latin. The teacher that Copernicus had contact with at Krakow's university was Albert Blar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Brudzewski). Albert Blar was educated at Prague University. That was the first German university (another fact, that Wikipedia is trying to hide). German because it was the first one in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, founded by the emperor. Albert Blar's astronomical education was Peuerbach etc. Many German teachers and students then went to Krakow and on to Frankfurt/Oder university. Albert Blar passed on what he had learned a Prague university to the Krakow's Jagiello university students. I do not know , if enrollment records for the Jagiello university in Krakow from that time are available or not, therefore I cannot tell how many people were Polish. However it is clear that Copernicus did not need to speak Polish and did not. MG 2/14/2006

I agree that Copernicus could have survived in Krakow without speaking Polish, but what is the evidence which makes it clear he did not speak Polish at all? Jagiellonian Uniwersity certainly enrolled many Polish students, which Copernicus must have met, and in all likelihood learned some Polish from (if he really did not know any before), given that he was a man of great intelligence who learned such difficult languages as ancient Greek. In short, as I said earlier, the idea that Copernicus did not know any Polish at all seems very unlikely to me. Certainly I have never seen solid evidence to that effect. Balcer 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Copernicus is recorded as Prussian of German Nation

There is a lot of written material by Copernicus (other than the Latin and Greek), as he was a Prussian of German Nation as it is recorded in Italy, he himself wrote about his homeland Preussenland Prussia. He was a church canon in Frauenburg, governor (administrator) in Allenstein and Mehlsack, left a lot of correspondence, treated Prussians as their doctor, wrote the Prussian coin treatise and other correspondence, all in his native German language. He always signed his name with N or Nicolaus and to duke Albrecht of Brandenburg-Prussia signed stetigst dynend, he was for a long time a church canon in Breslau, Silesia and so on and so on. There is not a single written word in Polish language, there is not a single mentioning anywhere by him or about him having written or spoken Polish. His family and he personally always were burghers of Hanse cities. To become a Hanse burgher one had to 'be of German tongue' (native German speaker). Thorn also had Kulmer Law, again requirement 'of German tongue'. MG 2/15/2006

All you present here is evidence that he spoke German (which everyone knows). You have not presented any evidence that he did not speak Polish. Believe it or not, it is possible for a person to speak both of these languages at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive!
Let me spell it out as clearly as I possibly can: the fact that someone speaks German does not automatically mean that they do not speak Polish.
As for the German Nation group at the Italian University, it is well known that there was no Polish group there so students from Poland had to join other groups, very frequently the German one. So, this is not evidence for anything. As for the absence of writings in Polish, for the umpteenth time, Polish was not yet widely used as a written language at the time.
But anyway, all this is beside the point. The reason I and many others insist on calling Copernicus Polish was because he was Polish by citizenship. He was a loyal subject of the King of Poland. His ethnicity and mother tongue are to me of secondary importance. Balcer 05:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that "of German tongue" is not the same as "native German speaker". The requirements iirc were being born in Prussia and knowing German. Surely all this citizens in Thorn and elsewhere called "Polack" "Polonus" "Polenis" would tend to disagree. Though it is true that in time of Copernic there was quite famous case of one Pole, married with German, born in the city, who was refused the city citizenship and many local authorities had to intervene in his case.. I must search the details, because they run away from my memory. Szopen 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Szopen, it did mean native German language speaker and born in Prussia. The translation to English is just a bit ockward.

What Balcer just does not seem to get, is that people at that time held c i t i z e n s h i p, that meant they had been born or became a burgher of that particular city.

MG 2/16/2006

(Balcer,) You or the many others were asked repeatedly to show proof, but have not shown a single item, that proofs, that Copernicus was Polish. MG 2/25/2006

He spent just about all of his life in the Kingdom of Poland, as its loyal citizen. Hence, he is Polish by citizenship. His ethnicity and mother tongue are a secondary issue. Knowledge of Polish was not required in order to be a citizen of the Kingdom of Poland. I don't know why you have such great difficulty grasping this.
To help you out, I will illustrate this with an example. Consider Switzerland. Its citizens speak German, French, Italian and Romansh, yet all of them are considered to be full citizens of Switzerland. They are Swiss by nationality, not by language. Let me be even more specific: consider Paracelsus, a rough contemporary of Copernicus. His Wikipedia biography states that he was born of a Swabian father and a Swiss mother, yet was brought up in Austria. German was indeed his primary language. He spent most of his life wandering all over Europe. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not categorize him as a German scientist but a Swiss scientist (and Austrian as well). In fact, Wikipedia does not have even one word about him being German. As you can see, it is not the language that matters, but citizenship.
If you don't agree with this, then to be consistent you have to extend your revert war to most of the names on List of Swiss people, who according to you are probably Germans, Italians and Frenchmen, going by their mother tongue. Balcer 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Balcer, you just don't seem to get it, the people at that time held c i t i z e n s h i p, that meant they had been born in or became a burgher of that particular city. You cannot now over 500 years later make a Polish citizen out of Copernicus, just as you cannot now make a Polish citizen out of Arthur Schopenhauer or Georg Foster or many many others, that you, Molobo, Space Cadet, Witkacy and who knows all of your buddies are relentle

Now to the Swiss people in Wikipedia- first of all Wikipedia is very unfactual and incorrect in a large number of articles, specifically all those constantly reverted by the group mentioned.

In earlier centuries Switzerland and Austria, Holland, Luxemburg etc were mostly part of or connected to the Holy Roman Empire, therefore share the same history. Italians, while a part of Germans wound up in northern Italy, compliments of Treaty of Versailles, they nevertheless keep German names and German language, as you can tell from the many winter olympians from Italy. The Lothringians, for many centuries Germans, wound up in France, but their language is still a dialect of German. So no there are generally no revert wars necessary. None of the groups behave in any way like for example Molobo on wikipedia. There are also many good Polish wikipedia contributors.


Wait a second, first you insist that Copernicus was Prussian, now you insist that what really matters is being a burgher of a given city, so presumably Copernicus should be called a "Thorner" or something. Could you explain why you changed your mind? At any rate, it is simply not common practice to assign nationality to people based on their home city (with the exception of truly independent cities which were separate countries, like Venice or Florence).
I see you can't really answer my point about Switzerland. That country still illustrates my basic point: someone can have German as his mother tongue and still not be a German.
The Russian analogy obviously does not apply here, as Russia did not have any connection whatsoever with East Prussia until after 1945.Balcer 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The behaviour of MG

is the same as critisized by the article about de:Piefke, that is about germans who incorporate austrian cultural achievments into the BIG EVERYTHING SWOLLOWING GERMANIA and claim they were theirs.

To the person, that wrote this strange jibberish, but did not bother to sign it

Here is a list of sources identifying Nicolaus Copernicus as Prussian Mathematician , as Canon of Warmia-Ermland, an excempt Prince-Bishopric as of German Nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=40773294#Nicolaus_Copernicus.27_Prussus_or_Borussus_Mathematicus Suggestion: stick to the subject (Nicolaus Copernicus) and keep nonesense to yourself, you'll look less foolish then. MG 2/22/2006

Verifiability

Speaking of Police: I just want to remind people about Wikipedia:Verifiability (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, too, but seems hopeless here). I don't claim Copernicus as 100% German, and I don't think anybody else here does. Some claim him 100% Polish though, and I (and Wikipedia) would like to see evidence for that (apart from repeating "Prussia was Polish province" all over again). --Matthead 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Read more carefully. Anon user from IP 24.23.39.36 claims that there was nothing Polish about Copernicus. Now he is fighting a revert war trying to prove that Torun was an independent state which had nothing to do with Poland. Balcer 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Stadtrepublik or Stadtstaat Thorn

Thorn, Thorunensis, birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus was an independent city state, state republic Referces: Stadtstaat or Stadt Republik [55][56][57] MG 2/6/2006

Thorn Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher- Taufen Heiraten Tote-Church Records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since c 1600 [58] [59] MG 2/6/2006


Nothing about it on the city homepage.Which I trust more then some West Prussian nostalgic amatour homepage/correction-this is the page of the German nationalist organisation BdV if I am looking right ?/ --Molobo 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One page is by Landsmannschaft Westpreußen, part of Federation of Expellees. Somehow I do not think this is a neutral sorce of information in this case. I would prefer to use more impartial sources, like books by reputable academic historians, ideally written in English. Balcer 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Nicolaus Copernicus' Signature

He always signed his name with an N sample: [60], never with an M, therefore his name was not Mikolai.


Resolution

I see only two disputes here: the subject's nationality and the spelling of his name. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be much dispute over the other 99.99% of the article. Though I understand that it is an important matter, let's not overlook that this is an excellent biography. You've all done a fine job. Another good thing is the civil tone that editors have maintained even while disputing matters, which helps keep the atmosphere collegial. If editors are willing to compromise and work towards an NPOV solution that is at least barely acceptable to everybody, then we might find that resolution. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Deletion of links to German-Polish cooperations

On 23:09, 16 February 2006, Balcer deleted links, giving remarkable summaries, like

  • "as this radio is no longer in existence, what is the point of including the link? How useful is it to anybody?". Copernicus is also no longer in existence and not useful to anybody, so quite fitting, isn't it? Besides, we should delete all articles on dead persons and past events from Wikipedia then.
No, but we should delete external links which are no longer current. Balcer 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "award is not notable (only $50,000 euros, which in science is quite common, and it has never been even given yet". Okay, so this funny American-European currency and the amount of 50,000 is peanuts. And in addition to past events, future events are not interesting, too.
I take it you have no idea at all how scientists are funded. Since I happen to be a scientist, let me explain. If you are conducting scientific research, a grant of $50,000 is pretty standard. It allows you to support 2 graduate students for about one year. Big deal. If that is all a professor gets, he is actually considered to be quite poorly funded. All active research scientists get yearly grants like this or bigger as a matter of course. Hence the grant is nowhere near notable enough to warrant a link here.Balcer 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "German-Polish year is great of course, but I do not see any mention of Copernicus on their webpage" No problem, here's how to: click "Mapa serwisu" in bottom right, write "kopernik" in box next to red "szukay" button, and get 8 hits. "Copernicus" yields 5, as does "kopernikus". HTH.
Funny, you mean you have to actually search the website to find a mention of Copernicus? It just proves my point that the association between the website and Copernicus is remote and hence the website does not merit inclusion. Try to estimate how many websites mention Copernicus somewhere in their domain. Do you plan to include links to all of them?
To make a general point, everyone reading the internet also has access to Google, so there is no point to include an excessive number of external links. Let me also be very clear: I have no objection to include links on Polish-German cooperation inspired by Copernicus (note I left 2 which I think merit inclusion). However, all the links we include should be good links, not some random ones spit out by a quick Google search. Balcer 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides, publicly stated "knowledge" (see User talk:Matthead#Frombork) about international affairs that took place only a few years or decades ago puts any opinions on century-old events in perspective. --Matthead 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say this comment puzzles me. What in the world are you trying to say? Please explain more clearly, but do it on my talk page, not here, as this is irrelevant to the discussion. Balcer 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It is very relevant here also. You not only have proven yourself to be ignorant of international facts and treaties from 1945 to 1990, you also called them "outrageous. This might very well be the view of German revisionists" in the meantime. From that, I concluded that you better not make judgements on even older issues, and most certainly you should not continue to make POV statements in articles. --Matthead 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As evidenced by this diff, in which you added, in the Frombork: article "1990 Two Plus Four Agreement: ceded to Poland by Germany after 218 years". Judging from this it seems you believe that Frombork and other Polish cities east of the Oder-Neisse line belonged to Germany until 1990. I will leave it to others to judge for themselves whether that view is moderate or extreme. Just keep in mind that the only country in the world which had any issues whatsoever with post-1945 Polish borders all the way to 1990 was Germany. All the other countries in the world long recognized those borders. The German view on the issue does not reflect the world view. Poland's ownership of those lands did not depend solely on Germany's permission. The reunified Germany in 1990 simply recognized long existing realities, and it had absolutely no other option. Balcer 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have locked this page because there seems to be an edit war going on. Please find a consensus using the talk page. -Will Beback 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got hickups? Space Cadet 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hic! Hic! Hic! -Will Beback 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


How about a vote?

Simple, really. These would probably be the most common choices:

  • 1)Polish astronomer
  • 2)Polish astronomer of German origin
  • 3)German astronomer

Any thoughts? Ksenon 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on how this discussion and revert war went, the options for the lead, which is what the fight seems mostly about, should correctly be (correct me if I misrepresented anyone's view):

  • 1) Polish astronomer (advocated by myself and others)
  • 2) No mention of nationality in the lead (advocated mainly by Matthead)
  • 3) Prussian astronomer (viewpoint advocated exlusively by anon user 24.23.39.36)
  • 4) Polish astronomer of German origin (option formulated today by Ksenon)

None of the main participants made edits during this dispute to call Copernicus a German astronomer in the lead, as far as I remember.Balcer 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest allocating more time for discussing the options in the vote. So far only 2 people have expressed an opinion on these. In particular Matthead and user 24.23.39.36 should comment on the vote terms. Balcer 03:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose resolving the nationality dispute by granting Copernicus posthumous citizenship in the European Union, along with every other deceased distinguished European. logologist|Talk 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Objection-we shouldn't vote on anything. Should we vote on the subject of Earth being flat or not ? The fact is that the whole scientific community that has no doubt far better research then we can hope for, considers Kopernik to be a Polish astronomer, the only exception being isolated German books, that base their information on nationalistic German concepts from XIX century.

Thus such vote goes against established scholary facts respected by scientific community. I have nothing against noting that Germans tried to portay Kopernik as German as part of their nationalistic ideology. However this is a minority view that isn't accepted as truth by scientific community, and deserves only a small mention. --Molobo 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please present modern historical scholary sources claiming he is German. --Molobo 11:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Duden's books say he is German. ISBN 3411056231 , for one, says Kopernikus is a German astronomer and mathematician. On its official site ([61]) it also reads he is German if you enter 'Kopernikus'. Sciurinæ 13:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sciurinæ this are XIX century books, during the period that Germans wanted to portay Kopernik as German astronomer. Those attempts are well documented. By modern I meant non-German(since in XIX German historians tried to portay Kopernik as a German) post 1945.--Molobo 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
No, actually the version isn't from the XIX century. And the Duden, believe it or not, stands for quality in German-speaking countries. In fact, it determines the German language.

Sciurinæ 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See article above-such claims are leftovers from XIX century German nationalism repeated only in Germany.

--Molobo 14:24, 20 February 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.


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 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So as we can see claims that Kopernik was German are the sad remains of German nationalism. It is really unfortunate that some parts of this ideology are still around. --Molobo 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I vote for 2) No mention of nationality in the lead otherwise the editing will never stop. The issue of his nationality is discussed in detail in Historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality Splette 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should bow to German nationalism that echo's here, as has been proven all major encylopedia's mention Kopernik as Polish, so why should wiki be different. The attempts of germanising Kopernik are well documented and it could be mentioned. I oppose the idea of the vote, as we have scholary objective sources to base our decisions on. --Molobo 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Proposed sentence

As per article provided above.

Till XIX century Copernicus was seen as Polish astronomer. Only with the rise of German nationalism attempts have been made to portay him as German figure. Such claims have largely disappeared after WW 2, but can sometimes resurface in German language books. --Molobo 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Find any source confirming the Duden's *present ideology*, Monsieur. Your attempts at implementing biased original reasearch will never ever end, will they? Sciurinæ 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is based on article printed in bulletin of the Polish Linguistics Society by an expert on linguistics Professor doctor Witold Manczak http://149.156.51.41/czlonk_e.htm:

MEMBERS OF POLISH ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Prof. Witold Mańczak (Linguistics)

I haven't seen any article claiming he is biased.

Your attempts at implementing biased original reasearch will never ever end, will they?

As usuall I recomend you to avoid personal remarks. --Molobo 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sad to read this suggestion of Molobo. It indicates, that everybody who just considers that Copernicus had any relation to German culture is close to be a German nationalist. It is neither true that Copernicus was seen as Polish until XIX century, nor that only Germans hesitate to call him a Pole. Additionally the discussion on this page shows clearly, that the case isn't clear at all. There are some good arguments, why Copernicus can be considered as German as well. It is not of primary importance what textbooks say about him, but what the historical situation permits to conclude. The argument, he lived throughout his life in Poland and was thus Polish by allegance fails in two points: It can't be interpreted as an national statement because Copernicus certainly did not worry about his nationality. He lived there because his uncle was the bishop and offered him a position with an outcome throughout Copernicus' life. Second: Warmia, the political entity where Copernicus spent his lifetime, was not an integral part of Poland: Bishop Watzenrode was not accepted by the Polish king but nonetheless ordained by the Pope. The bishoperic wanted to separate from the Teutonic order and thus accepted the Polish king as liege lord. But the exempt bishops insisted in autonomy laws, so it is often said that Warmia was under suzerainty of the Polish crown. Among other rights they insisted on German as administrative language, the coinage prerogative and seperate meetings with the Polish king apart from the normal Polish estates. The attempts of king Casimir to establish a bishop clearly shows, that the king wasn't satisfied by the status of Warmia. I can't see any indications, that his political career made him Polish, but in the same way I don't think it indicates, that he wanted to be German. So far I heard no other arguments for him being a Pole based on history, after it became clear, that he was at least of German decent from his mother's site. Since a few days only statements like "he was considered Polish" and the Encyclopedia XY said he's Polish" and so on are edited. I recommend strongly to ommit any national comment in the lead. The case is not as clear as the pro-Polish people claim it here.--dago, 16:06, 20 February 2006 (CET).
I would even assume, that Copernicus was called a Polish Astronomer untill his work was not honoured by catholic church, and even black-listed as forbidden literature in 1616. So the people could say: "it's just a non-worthy hypothesis of a polish astronomer", so nobody has to care about it. But when in 1757 the catholic church recognized tha validity of heliocentric system, then he suddenly was called: A GREAT GERMAN ASTRONOMER!!!. Who of the today's mortals would dare to reveal the truth after centuries of catholic and nationalistic hypocrisy, lies and cover-ups???

So the people could say: "it's just a non-worthy hypothesis of a polish astronomer", so nobody has to care about it. I rather doubt it would be so in XVII-as in that time Poland was quite an important country with a high position in Europe. However the later part is probably right, since in XVIII/XIX it must have been difficult for German nationalists and Prussian's who were in conflict with Poles to accept important figures as Poles, since it would undermine their arguments about inferiority of Polish people towards Germans, and Partitions of Poland as well. However this is just a possible and likely explanation of German nationalists attempts trying to take portay Kopernik as German. Interesting theory though. --Molobo 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal views, but I believe Prof. Witold Mańczak has a greater competence in this area. Unless of course you can bring a modern equal scholar who would make a case for Kopernik to be German. --Molobo 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I recommend strongly to ommit any national comment in the lead

Why should we ignore the whole scholary world and base our articles on isolated German books that are based on German nationlists ideology from XIX century as honourable profesor Manczak pointed out ? --Molobo 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Molobo, your contributions of the kind "all Poles unite!" aren't very helpful in the discussion, but you revealed your particular point of view in your comment to Polish-Lituanian Commenwealth. This is not a basis fro a fruitful discussion.
2. I did not claim Corpernicus a German, but I'm (still) not convinced that he was Polish, for what reasons I've explained above.
3. If you reference to a Polish Professor you should explain at least with a few words, how he works out his point. His writings aren't available in English, as far as I can see. Additionally there will be enough members of the Prussian Academy of Science, who considered Corpenicus as German. I wouldn't insist, that they all had an unbiased point of view, altough they were respectable historicians. Molobo probably considers all members of a Prussian Academy of Science as per se German nationalists.
4. The historical remarks I made aren't my personal point of view: The most historical information I took from: Nicolaus Copernicus by J. Hamel (Spektrum, 1994). Hamel gives no answer whether Copernicus was German or Polish, nor did I. If you argue, that the author is a German: The book is recommended by Owen Gingerich, who wrote in the preface, that he in particular appreciates Hamel's careful treatment of the nationality question, "which has been badly abused". Owen Gingerich is a professor at Harvard University and was awarded the Polish government's Order of Merit in 1981 for his work on Copernicus' writings. As you can see on Gingerich's homepage (link from the corresponding wiki article), he also makes no statement about Copernicus nationality (in contrast to Kepler).
5. To Balcer: Yes, it is not unusual, to assign nationalities to personaleties of 16th century, and we can't hardly change that in general. But it isn't appropriate in all cases to insist in one clearly defined nationality. Copernicus seems to be a disputable case - as you can see on this page. That doesn't mean, that the assignment in other cases is less problematic. Look (as an example) at Richard Coeur de Lion (Richard the Lionheart, Richard I of England). If you considered him as English you'd look at his political position as king of England. If you said, he had been french, you'd rely on his french mother, his french culture, the facts that he passed only two month of his entire life in England and that he swore an oath of allegiance to the french king, because he was the most important french lord and landowner (effectively he controlled a bigger territory in France than the french king). And now: French or English? History is not as simple, and sometimes we should respect that. --Dagox 11:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What are you up to, Molobo? Are you trying to prove that he's wholly Polish and everyone else's claims or doubts are German nationalism? That is just what you should have decried as a "personal view". Dago's summary of the problem is not POV at all, or explain why. In fact, Dago's summary is the only historical argument used in this discussion.
And now you come up with a Polish professor of linguistics and pray his competence as an authorative proof. Linguistics is not the expertise needed to ensure reliabilty for the topic. But we needn't doubt the authority because even if we took it at face value, the translated part does not make any attempts to give proof or an argument that Copernicus is wholly and undoubtedly Polish. It simply describes what books said over the time, so what does that matter? Do you want to include that after WW2 the number of books calling him German declined? Or is there a God because most people say there is one? Fine, but what does that matter? The source certainly does not conclude that only German nationalists wanted to call Copernicus a German and that they are wrong. --Sciurinæ 17:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The source certainly does not conclude that only German nationalists wanted to call Copernicus a German and that they are wrong You forgot to link to the source you are talking about, so I could be able to addres it. --Molobo 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
??? Maybe you try to express that you don't know which source I'm talking about. I'm talking about the source you translated. The text from that professor of linguistics you use to defame every source claiming German ancestry of Copernicus as German nationalism. --Sciurinæ 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I will respond to your allegations as soon as you devandalise the page about Hakata proving you are a serious contributor and not a nationalistic pov pusher. Your recent activity has led me to doubt if engaging in debate with you is sensible as you have proven to ignore debate and sources and enganged in series of deletions regardless of discussion page and sources. --Molobo 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Comment

'Finally, some notes regarding the frequently discussed question of Nicolaus Copernicus's nationality. W. Shea dealt with this question in his biography on him in 2003. He writes that this long and bold argument between Poles and German is nonsense and in fact has to remain inconclusive. Today's common term of the nationality hasn't been known yet in the lifetime of Nicolaus Copernicus. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as well as the Polish-Lithuanian Union were no states in today's sense, but constructs whose population was mixed out of many linguistical and ethnical groups. The term 'native country', according to Shea, did not transcend regional dimensions in ancient times because most states were very scattered. So Nicolaus Copernicus owed allegiance to the King of Poland, yet considered the small German-speaking community of Ermland as his fatherland. Both Poles and Germans should be equally proud of their Copernicus. They have every reason for it.' Translated parts from [62] --Sciurinæ 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are presenting a straw man argument because no one here is claiming that Copernicus was Polish in today's sense, obviously. Equally, none of the states in Europe in the 15th century were states in today's sense, yet there are hundreds of Wikipedia biography articles about people living in Europe at that time which prominently feature the nationality in the article lead. Are you in favor of eliminating all mention of nationality in articles about Europeans living before 1550, or is Copernicus a special case? Balcer 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Poles and Germans should be equally proud of their Copernicus. Why should Poles accept nationalists Germanisation of Kopernik conducted in XIX century ?

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as well as the Polish-Lithuanian Union were no states in today's sense

Holy Roman Empire wasn't a state obviously, but Commowealth was. --Molobo 09:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite obviously. Everybody knows that. ;) --Thorsten1 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anne Frank compromise

Anne Frank was born in one legal land boundary, with a different "national" and ethnic, orientation, was then stripped of citizenship from that land boundary, moved to another land boundary, changed her languages, etcetc... Can we say *where* Copernicus was born boundary-wise, what that boundary was back then, where it is now, and also identify land boundaries and nationalities and cultures and ethnicities he was identified with over his life, rather than having a false dilemma about him being any one thing? Ronabop 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Misconception of Nationality term in general and for non-native english speakers

I believe that speaking about Copernicus as a Pole is clear for US-Americans or British people. A german reader may understand the term "nationality" as "Nationalität" which is wrong! The same for Poles: they may misunderstand it as "narodowość". When english native speakers talk about nationality they mean citizenship actually (in german "Staatsangehörigkeit", in polish "obywatelstwo"). And when an encyclopedia (ie. Britannica) writes about Copernicus that he was a Pole, it means his citizenship only and not ethnicity!

The same is in the case of US Americans, Canadians or in Latin American countries: in the US many people speak spanish, but they still are US americans. The same in Canada, where some people speak french, nobody would claim that they are French, and also in Cuba nobody would say that people living there are Spaniards, because they speak spanish only. But that is not the case for polish or german people: in Germany and in Poland, the "nationality" is assigned to someone thru his language and culture mainly, not citizenship only (in Germany though not consequent enough, because the Swiss speaking german would never consider themselves Germans). There can live Poles in Germany (with german citizenship), and Germans in Poland too. So a german reader cannot understand, why Copernicus - who wrote in german and lived in german culture within polish borders - is not called a German. For the Poles it is different: there are Poles living in Chicago, because today a Pole identifies himself by his language mainly. But in the time of Copernicus it was not so: for some readers it may appear strange, but there were (ethnic) foreigners who were Polish Kings! They didn't speak polish at all, but they were Polish Kings, because at that time the nationality concept was not bound to a language or culture at all. Even the king Frederick II of Prussia in his letter to Voltaire on Dec 10, 1773 wrote about Copernicus as a Pole, as of a citizen of a country which was then partitioned: Il était bien juste qu'un pays qui avait produit un Copernic, ne croupît pas plus long-temps dans la barbarie, en tout genre, où la tyrannie des puissans l'avait plongé. [...] On ne peut comparer les provinces Polonaises à aucun État de l'Europe; elles ne peuvent entrer en parallèle qu'avec le Canada. Il faudra par conséquent de l'ouvrage & du temps pour leur faire regagner ce que leur mauvaise administration a négligé pendant tant de siècles.[63] (Lettre CCCLXXXVI, page 64, put it in babelfish.altavista.com if you need a translation; published on Werke Friedrich des Großen, Digitale Ausgabe der Universitätsbibliothek Trier). So when today we speak about Copernicus as a Pole we have to mention that his nationality is not understood under today's nationality concept, but under that one of XVI. century (or under that one which is common in english speaking countries). We should mention his german culture and origins too, not to alienate and offend sensibilities of the Germans.

- De Bart, 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

De Bart, in general, what you wrote about citizenship is true. In the case of Nicolaus Copernicus however it is clear (should be) that he was n o t a Polish citizen, but had dealings with Polish crown and did go to school in Krakow. Nicolaus Copernicus was for centuries known as Prussian Mathematician of German Nation [64]. He was a church canon in Silesia (imperial ruled) and in Ermland/Warmia an exempt Prince-Bishopric of Prussia. The official language in either land (Silesia or all of Prussia including Warmia) was German (In Silesia Schlesisch and in Prussia Hanse Platt- Low German), continously from the 1200's until 1945. None were an integral part of Poland, as a number of Polish patriots here are trying to make us believe.

They had treaties with other countries and the Lithuanian Jagiellos- Habsburgs, who were married or the sons, grandsons of emperors happened to be also kings of Poland, as well as dukes of Prussia. Then it was the Swedish Wasas, again married to Habsburgs, who were also Polish kings. After that it was the Wettin Saxon Imperial Electors from 1697 until 1760's (?), who were also kings of Poland.

Friedrich the II. may have called Prussia a 'Polish province', just like he called (western-eastern) Prussia a 'Russian Province'. (Koenigsberg, Elbing, Danzig were attacked and occupied by Russian and Saxon troops in the 17-hundreds, and Koenigsberg submitted to the 'Russian Czarina' Catherine the Great. Elbing and Danzig sent their vital statistics of the population, church records- birth marriage, death to the Imperial Elector, the archbishop of Cologne. A very thick book with records during the occupation of Danzig and Elbing of 1734 was printed at Cologne.

Submitting-giving an oath to a conquering army, was standard procedure and saved towns many times from total destruction and lasted until the rulers changed or the towns defenses became stronger. The situation changed as soon as circumstances allowed it. Anyway Frederick the Great resented what he called the 'Russian' province of Prussia. This is not unlike during the Cold War everything other than Western Europe were 'the Communists' (even thought in East Germany GDR there were only about 10 % actual Communist members). It is also not unlike the situation a thousand years earlier, when for centuries people roamed in from Asia (Huns, Magyars, Bulgars, Avars). They pushed people westwards before them into , what was then known as Magna Germania (Free Germania, the part not conquered by the Romans). A stop was finally put to that with the Franks- Bavarians on the Lechfeld in 955 and with the establishment of Marches, patrolling of borderlands. The raids of the Vikings were stopped as well. The masses of different people, (according to church: none christianized, sclaves to the devil) were then written down by historians in the Sclave-Chronicles. This later on was assumed to have been a Chronicle of the Slavs. Centuries later again came the Mongols, Tatars, Turks, who streamed into Europe, always push and shove. Hungary including Habsburg were for a long time paying allegiance to the Ottoman Empire for large parts of the land. Russia was for 200 years or was it 300 ? subject to the Tatars. The Wikipedia Polish Patriot opinion on Copernicus and all other East German (east of Oder-Neisse) people and places can be compared to all Russians being Tatar Nationals and the Hungarians and others are actually Turks. People are confused by constantly changing European history. MG 2/21/2006

I will not bother to respond to this rant except to say that the anonymous user has so far cited no modern historical sources to support his thesis. As for the true political situation of Royal Prussia, I will again point to some historical maps: [65],[66] (maps are from the "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1923. Yes, it is an atlas from the 1920s, but because of that it is in the public domain and viewable on the web. More modern historical atlases depict the political relationship between Poland and Royal Prussia in a similar way).
Finally, the view that Copernicus was Polish is not held exclusively by Polish nationalists, as the anonymous user maintains. It also happens to be the view of such respected English references as Encyclopedia BritannicaBalcer 01:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No one here is claiming that exclusively Polish nationalists hold the opinion that Copernicus was Polish. By contrast, there's one who declares all claims of Copernicus being German "are based on German nationlists ideology from XIX century". The argument that Britannica describes him as a Polish astronomer has already been used a dozen times on this page and is also the main argument on the current version of this article. Britannica isn't so much more reliable than wikipedia, by the way[67]. Sources that do not even mention the controversy should not be used to resolve it and neither should Wikipedia. --Sciurinæ 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources that do not even mention the controversy should not be used to resolve it and neither should Wikipedia Can sources not mentioning that Earth is considered by some to be flat be mentioned in Earth article ? I see no point why we shouldn't use sources free from influences of German nationalistic ideology. --Molobo 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone interested in the history of Royal Prussia, I suggest the most recent, comprehensive reference: The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569-1772 by Karin Friedrich, Cambridge University Press, 2000 (book viewable on Google Book Search). Balcer 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I find one particular passage in this book which I think merits extensive citation (from page 23 of the book):
Section: Royal Prussia as a province of the Polish crown
In the political language of the Polish Renaissance, whose culture had already penetrated Prussian political thinking and writing under Teutonic rule, the Incorporation Act of 1454, which joined the Prussian territories in union with Poland, accused the Teutonic Knights of tyranny: their acts of perfidy and violence had nullified all previous treaties and obligations owed by their former subjects. This document was later accorded quasi-religious veneration by the Prussian estates, and particularly the representatives of the three major cities. As a catalogue of gravamina against the German Order, it details the estates' accusations. The Teutonic Knights' evil deeds - murder, conspiracy, exploitation, rape, fraud and tyranny - justified, in the words of the Polish King, the act of resistance against unlawful government. As a 'king who obeys the laws set by God', Casimir Jagiellonczyk accepted the Prussian prelates, knights, burghers, nobles, and all inhabitants of the Prussian lands under his rule, to which they 'spontaneously and voluntarily' subjected themselves ([latin quote of document, translated: we integrate, reunite, reinstate, and incorporate [you], for the participation in all properties, laws, liberties and prerogatives ... of the Polish kingdom). Balcer 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Good comment, MG! You should create an account on Wikipedia so no one can simply devalue your comments by saying it comes from an "anon IP". --Sciurinæ 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I urge every anonymous user to create her/his/its account. IPs should only be allowed to edit stubs, IMHO.--Matthead 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The "answer" of the user signing with "MG" (someone called it a rant; for me it is a very confusing text reading like a sequence of words spat by some historical random generator) is in my honest opinion extremly POV. It is his personal interpretation of the history based on no reputable sources so far. Besides, MG misunderstood something: In the letter of Frederic the Great to Voltaire, Frederic didn't mention that Copernicus came from a "polish province", but he refered to a partitioned country stagnating in cruelty after the tyranny of the prussians and that the (first) partition of Poland - a country which produced Copernic - was right! So please don't distribute such nonsense that Copernicus was not a Polish citizen. I agree that he grew up in a german speaking culture, so there is evidence to assume his german origin, but also there is evidence to see him as a Pole, after strong allegiance to the Polish Crown. The article should not try to put him on one of the both sides, but should reflect the nationality controversy as it is the recent standard of knowledge of mankind, end of story! PUNTO, BASTA, PUNKT, KROPKA!

- De Bart 12:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

De Bart, Balcer, Molobo and whoever wants to make Copernicus a Polish Citizen , read what other people of the scientific and Catholic church community in Europe have reported on Copernicus and the land where he was born, lived, worked and where he died:

Nicolaus Copernicus, Prussian Mathematician (Prussus or Borussus Mathematicus) [68] Copernicus born in Thorn, Prussia, worked and died in Ermland-Warmia, Prussia [69]

You seem to feel that you have more authority than emperor and pope. You live close to the Walhalla, have you visited the Copernicus bust?

De Bart, to your comment on Frederic the Great, MG's answer was he may have said, then again he may not, but he did say something to the effect of Eastprussia beeing a Russian province, or the people are 'Russians' or something like that (I do not have exact quotes available). The samples that followed may have been confusing, but were only meant to basically show Propaganda of attacking forces, who marginalize, demonize, use one-sided slogans in order to conquer, I believe I do not have to state current samples. If it is too confusing for you, I will take it out.

Now, since you insist , along with Balcer, Molobo, to call Copernicus Polish, would you please be so kind as to post actual samples of official scientific statements continous references throughout the centuries by various people from different European countries, as I did on my above list of 'Prussian Mathematician' in 'Borussia (Prussia) Germaniae, etc. Balcer and Molobo have been repeatedly asked to do so, but have not posted a single item, other than Enc. Britannica or mirror sites of wikipedia. Thank you MG 2/25/2006

  • I never said, Copernicus was Polish only.
  • Words "or something like that" return you back to school.
  • I provided you (obviously a completely ignorant person to arguments of others) already two sources declaring Copernicus polish (or half-polish): the letter of king Frederic the Great, then the entry in Deutsche Allgemeine Biographie were it is saying that Copernicus father was of slavic origin, and there is even another one: Nietzsche calls Capernicus polish too: Es that mir wohl, an das Recht des polnischen Edelmanns zu denken, mit seinem einfachen Veto den Beschluß einer Versammlung umzuwerfen; und der Pole Copernikus schien mir von diesem Rechte gegen den Beschluß und den Augenschein aller andern Menschen eben nur den größten und würdigsten Gebrauch gemacht zu haben. [70]. Translation for the polish guys: I was pleased to think of the right of the Polish nobleman to upset with its simple veto the resolution of a (parlament) meeting; and the Pole Copernikus seemed to have made from this right against the resolution and all appearances of other people the largest and worthiest use.
  • I pointed many times my opinion, that the nationality of Copernicus is a controversial one and that nobody can claim today, that he was polish or german exclusively. I wonder that you didn't grasp that yet.
-- De Bart, 11:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I posted a list of official portraits of the scientific and Catholic church community with the description of Copernicus as Prussian and deutsch-German.

You posted some informal conversations by Frederik the Great . Those are not concrete scientific statements, but to be taken as gossip conversations, propaganda and as far as Nietsche, wasn't he pretty sick? So please, post official scientific statements, not mere conversations.

  • Your other point, this is what I wrote above Now, since you insist , along with Balcer, Molobo, to call Copernicus Polish, would you please..

You mistakenly answer: I never said, Copernicus was Polish only. Well, I did not say that you said that either. You are doing the same thing, that the others, especially Molobo, constantly do, always accusing people and answering to things, people did n o t say. So while you did not grasp that and you feel like calling someone ignorant, you might want to look into a mirror. Now enough of that. Punkt Basta. MG 2/27/2006

MG, I am quite sure that Kromer, one of bishops of Warmia, called Nicolaus Copernicus Polish astronomer. Had to search it however. Szopen 10:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Note

Befor the article starts, let's put there the following note:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This should stop any future vandalism. -- De Bart 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This complete loss of perspective is damaging an important page - take it somewhere else!

I came across this page just reading through the wikipedia. This discussion, and the page, are both embarassing. Has everyone lost all perspective?

First of all, what in the world is that long, tedious and irrelevant background paragraph on nationality doing as the first section of the article? People have completely lost all sense of proportion. It might seem like it's important to those here ... but his life and accomplishments are far more important. Start a page on his nationality, move that long background section there, work it out there. It's a sideshow to what this page is about, take it somewhere else. Whoever locked this page should have fixed that first.

Second, it's silly to think you're going to reach a resolution of how Polish or German he was, given the history of that part of the world. The answer is to note the cities he primarily lived / worked in; what nation they were in at the time; and what nation they are in now. State only known facts and leave out your personal interpretations of them.

Finally, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You've not only damaged an important page, you've wasted energy that could be far better spent writing pages. flux.books 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said in general, but sadly it's not that simple, especially since you seem to have discovered this messy page only now? The whole issue goes on here (and in many other articles) since at least 2002 (read forever). Writing pages might be a good idea, but taking care that POV does not hijack them is more important. It's better to have a small neutral correct encyclopedia rather than a big faulty and POV one. Besides, see my reply on User talk:Flux.books#Copernicus regarding the Start a page on his nationality idea etc. --Matthead 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see this insanity will go on forever, but isn't there a wikipedian with the authority and the common sense to move that first section (nationality background) to a less prominent location in the page? It's entirely inappropriate. flux.books 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There WAS page on Copernicus nationality. There was VfD on it and it was DELETED. Most of people who voted for deletion of this page haven't edited anything on that page. Szopen 07:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with the opinion of user flux.books. Write the known facts about birth/working/living place(s), countries etc, like flux.books suggested. Leave out reasoning like: "his mother language surely might be..." or "he joined club XY, so he must have been a born XYian..." or other patriotic POV (this also said to the polish side). Secondly to prevent future POV pushing write a note about unclear/controversial Copernicus nationality and that this "nationality fight" is going on (not since 2002 but) since XIXth century! A statement about this long fight can be found in a german 1875-encyclopedia already: [71]. Read it and be wiser and humbler. I can post a translation in english if somebody wishes. -- De Bart, 10:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested. I'd love to be wiser and humbler. Szopen 11:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok.:-) Here the original in german first:
Die Nationalitätenfrage ist ein Gegenstand verschiedener Schriften gewesen; ein ehrender Streit um das Anrecht auf den Begründer unserer heutigen Weltansicht ist zwischen Polen und Deutschen geführt, doch ist schon erwähnt, dass über die Nationalität der Eltern des Copernicus Sicheres sich nicht hat ermitteln lassen; der Vater scheint slawischer Abkunft, die Mutter deutscher zu sein; er wurde geboren in einer Stadt, deren Magistrat und gebildete Einwohner Deutsche waren, die aber zur Zeit seiner Geburt unter polnischer Herrschaft stand; er studierte in der polnischen Hauptstadt Krakau, dann in Italien und lebte bis an sein Ende in Frauenburg als Domherr; er schrieb lateinisch und deutsch. In der Wissenschaft ist er ein Mann, der nicht einer Nation angehört, sein Wirken, sein Streben gehört der ganzen Welt, und wir ehren in Copernicus nicht den Polen, nicht den Deutschen, sondern den Mann freien Geistes, den großen Astronomen, den Vater der neuen Astronomie, den Urheber der wahren Weltanschauung.
And here (a little bit funny) translation by babelfish.altavista.com. I corrected some obvious misspelling and translation errors, only the funny one I left:
The nationality question was a subject of different writings; an honouring controversy over the claim to the founder of our current world opinion [sic] is led between Poles and Germans, but it is already mentioned that over the nationality of parents of the Copernicus nothing sure/reliable could be determined; the father seems to be of slavic birth, the mother to be a German; he was born in a city, whose municipal authorities and educated inhabitants were Germans, which however at present of his birth was under Polish rule; he studied in Cracow in the Polish capital, then in Italy and lived to his end in woman castle [sic!] as a cathedral gentleman; he wrote Latin and German. In the science he is a man, who does not belong to a nation, his working, his striving belongs to the whole world, and we do not honour the Pole, not the German, in Copernicus but the man of free spirit, the great astronomer, the father of the new astronomy, the author of the true world view.
-- De Bart, 11:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
From this text I like the most: He was a cathedral gentleman in a woman castle ! (Domherr in Frauenburg) ;-), -- De Bart, 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Add an image?

Do you think we should add his 'reconstructed' image? I am pretty sure it would qualify as a fair use.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But do we really need it? The scientists who ordered the portrait did not have the jaw and still aren't sure whether it was him. And, last but not least, there were no tests so far to confirm that the skull was indeed Copernicus'. Halibutt 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Have the editors reached any consensus? Would it be a good time to remove the protection from the article, or do editors feel they need more time focused on discussion rather than editing? -Will Beback 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, what is required to call it a consensus. We have a (inofficial) vote result, which favors no nationality in the lead. It can be hardly achieved that everybody agrees in this matter. The idea to add then a "controversial-sign" in top of the nationality section would fit well.--Dagox 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

The dispute about identity has damaged this article. I suggest removing any statement about his ethnicity from the introduction and moving the section about ethnicity to somewhere near the bottom of the article. To most of the world, his achievements as a scientist dwarf any questions about his heritage.

The idea of an ethnicity section is valid, but the presentation needs to be redone. I claim no expertise about Copernicus in particular, although I'm familiar with fifteenth century European history and the general difficulties surrounding distinctions between East Prussian and Polish. The way to approach this is not by holding polls or debates on the talk page, but by presenting the best evidence for each side with reference to the authorities who cite it. Most of the world assumes Copernicus was Polish. Give a sense of the shape of this debate. How much currency does it have outside Germany? The article should touch on doubts about whether "nationality" and "ethnic identity" are relevant terms in this historic context. Durova 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Fully support. Copernicus is remembered for being an astronomer. Remove any statement about his ethnicity from the introduction and moving the section about ethnicity to somewhere near the bottom of the article.--FocalPoint 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you in favour of applying a similar policy to all scientists on Wikipedia? If so, please start removing the word German from the leads of articles about Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, who are mainly remembered for being physicists. After all, we would not want to have any statements about ethnicity when discussing scientists, according to you. On the other hand, if Copernicus is somehow special in this regard, please explain why. Balcer 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
To honour your nice argument (and sense of humour in editing the entry I wrote in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever), I removed the last sentence in parentheses "(or even better out of it)". I would prefer to leave it there, with letters crossed out, but I do not know how to do it.
To answer your question: I would rather not have double standards but Copernicus is special. All the people who participate in the edit war are making him special since they apparently think of him as a national prize, defacing a very good article about him. Since all those people cannot reach an agreement which would be limited in a few words, I settle for a double standard.--FocalPoint 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Balcer construes a position I never advocated. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons An introduction is the place to summarize straightforward information. If a clear and unbiased summary is impossible in a few words, then the subject belongs elsewhere in the article. This holds true whether the topic is the role of ethnicity in Nicolaus Copernicus's identity or the role of Burgundy in Joan of Arc's career. Durova 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my mastodon response was to FocalPoint's comment, as is clear by the quote indentation. Anyway, a part of our controversy here is the question whether the issue is controversial at all (sounds a bit like Zen koan, I admit). Major references like Encyclopedia Britannica appear to have no problem at all with emphasizing Copernicus' Polish nationality in the first sentence of their articles, which seems to suggest the issue is in fact not controversial. Balcer 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a similar comment so that applies to both of us, even if you had FocalPoint in mind. The German editors at this article have introduced enough documentation that I'm willing to take this controversy seriously. That doesn't mean I believe it or that it deserves equal weight. It just means a scholarly debate exists. At the risk of appearing sarcastic, Wikipedia's policy is WP:NPOV rather than WP:Kneel before Brittanica. Durova 22:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Looking at the above debate, I see no reason for continuing the already very long period of protection from editing. It should be perfectly easy to produce documentation that he was born in Cracow and there is a dispute about his origins. This can be put into the article in a neutral way that satisfies all as to due prominence, by a process of editing. I will be watching and expect to see cooperative editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

It appears that when I was posting my vote Thorsten's edit was deleted, and Matcreg's changed [72]. I have no idea how it happened, though I know that it does happen on Wiki sometimes. I see that Matcreg's edit is changed back, and I added the Thorsten's one that was deleted. I am very sorry it happened, and I thank Thorsten for spotting it.--SylwiaS | talk 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)