Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 4

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.

Contents

Copernican heliocentrism separated

As it was propsoed for quite same time, I've separated Copernican heliocentrism in order to shorten the main biography, and keep that article focussed on science, without frequent edit wars or vandals. Please edit the remaining, hastily shortened section, and expand the new article. -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


The section which states: "If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir." -is from an apologetically motivated website and perhaps this paragraph should begin with a phrase to that effect. Brilliant One April 14, 2007

I disagree. Stephen Hawking also expounded this in his book, On The Shoulders of Giants, which he states Corpernicus' fears of publication were due to scientist and not clergymen, and also that Copernicus felt his theories needed to be perfected through futher study. GnothiChristos 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a professional historian of science who has taken the time to read much of Copernicus. His model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic system, and based upon Copernicus' own irrational interests in Hermetic Neoplatonism, which caused him to equate the sun with the Platonic One. There were solid scientific reasons to reject Copernicus' model. It was not until after the Reformation that the dispute entered into the realm of the theological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.151.243 (talk) 16:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus as monetary reformer

To cover also the work of Copernicus as monetary reformer, which has merits of ist own, I've linked an "forgotten" article: Copernicus and coin reform. There, also the ever-popular political/national backgound conflicts had been discussed on Talk:Copernicus and coin reform. -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) .

Merge that article into this one already, it's pretty bad. It seems that the article on Copernicus' monetary theory is more concerned about the status of Warmia/Ermland during his land rather than actually explaining what it is that Copernicus did, and what his theory is.radek 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality debates

Anybody against Prussian as denomination?

Copernicus (latin, real name was Koppernigk) was a Prussian. Thorn and Frauenburg were cities of the Prussian Confederation who rebelled against the Teutonic Order and requested the protection of King Kazimierz IV Jagiellon. These cities became part of the Kingdom of Poland as Royal Prussia after the Thirteen Years' War. So the denomination as Prussian is neutral as far as I can see. Any objections?

Additionally, the Province of Prussia was never a part of Germany (neither Holy Roman Empire nor German Confederation) until 1871. The population was mixed linguistically. In the region of Prussia the people spoke mostly German in major cities, Kashubian or Polish in rural areas, and Lithuanian in the area of Memel.

Prussian is neutral because it combines both the Polish and the German heritage. It refers to a historical region. --Der Eberswalder 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, was proposed before as someone pointed out who deleted your entry and moved it to Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality. You want to use Casimir IV Jagiellon and Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385) (for the situation of his birthtime), though. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
These people were all Prussians, regardless who governed them or which language they spoke. The part where Koppernigk came from was called Polish Prussia or Royal Prussia (western part). The other part was Brandenburgian Prussia or Ducal Prussia (eastern part). Those who revert should say why they revert. Prussian is a term like Kashubian or Lithuanian. It is different from German or Polish, this is not the issue here. This guy was undisputedly a Prussian (in the old sense of this word). --Der Eberswalder 00:48, 14 January 9th 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was because there was no consensus/discussion regarding an insertion of nationality on the nationality talk page. You should wait a bit more before changing the article, allow a discussion to take place. My edit summary could have been a lot better, I'm sorry for that. Philip Gronowski Contribs 01:00, 14 January 9th 2007 (UTC)

Rather than be in favour of putting the word "Prussian" in front of "astronomer" until there's disagreement, I'm against "Prussian" as long as it doesn't have widespread agreement. While Prussian may be the most accurate one, the term "German" often springs to mind, as well. This feeling would be compounded by the fact that the German name was highlighted and put first. Without a doubt, not everyone would tolerate that and therefore the previous version, probably the fairest as it avoids asserting any nationality-point of view, should be kept until there's agreement otherwise. For that purpose, it would be advisable for you to read the archives and then argue on that basis, that is, if you haven't come to another conclusion by then, which, I hope, you might. I'm not talking of the "right" point of view concerning his nationality, nor confirm or deny that "Prussian" might be the most accurate version from a historical point of view. I'm talking of a conclusion in special regard to the dispute. Sciurinæ 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

His name was Nikolas Koppernigk. He later latinized it into Copernicus. The part of Prussia (region) he came from was a part of Poland (Royal Prussia), so he was a Polish citizen from a German-speaking Hanse town. Nobody disagrees about this. --Der Eberswalder 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus was no more Prussian than Martin Luther was "Holy Roman Imperial." Prussia is synomous with Germany in the minds of modern readers. You cannot expect anyone to thread their way through the historical changes that have brough bits of territory into this or that political realm to search for designations of individuals. Modern historians refer to pre-modern Europeans with appelations based upon their native languages. Copenicus was born and died speaking middle Polish. He was Polish, and to call him anything else is flatly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.151.243 (talk) 16:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What country was Copernicus born in and where did he live ?

To everyone, particularly Eberswalder, you write, that Copernicus was born in Royal Prussia. Even thought it says this in Wikipedia, it is nevertheless wrong. So is much of what gets input in Wikipedia. Therefore please do not copy it. (As sample please read all the 'Mikolaj of Rynsk, the Polish knight' = Talk/Nicholas von Renys discussions and back and forth, especially this part Rogala Clan Heraldry Snobbery and Document Falsification

A very rare, one of the earliest detailed maps, is from 1492 (1500) and depicts the roads from Germany to Rome (map in reverse direction)[1] City of Thorn, (Preissen Preussen (Prussia), where Copernicus was born. The country was Preussen, Prussia. The name Koeniglich Preussen (engl.Royal Prussia), did not exist during Copernicus' lifetime. It only began to be used by the 18th C during the time of the electors. Also the kings of Poland were kings of Poland only. They were dukes of Lithuania, Kiew, Masovia western Prussia etc. So lets stick to the most accurate information. We do not need more people to copy nonsense and worse, like for example the Nicolas von Renys, born of Polish Rogala clan (see Talk/N.Renys). This EN-Wikipedia, just like the DE do not reflect most accurate info and all you have to do is jump in and quickly fix it. We asked you already to go very careful. Look at all the endless debates and the countless histories. It took many months to just get some points agrred on (not really right), but when you want to go one step further, a whole group again gangs up and all the work is wasted. I hope you get it. Thanks. Best regards Labbas 17 January 2007

The name Royal Prussia might not have existed but the part he came from was annexed by the Kingdom of Poland. In my edit I did not use the term Royal Prussia but Prussian Confederation. --Der Eberswalder 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Polish kings were ruling over crown of Poland. The kingdom of Poland encompassed Masovia and Royal Prussia. The treaty and later discussions and arguments made it very clear, that Royal Prussia was considered part of Poland and Polish kings ruled it as part of Poland. Just read the Sejm discussion during final unification and you will know all the arguments presented by Prussian opposition and Polish Sejm Szopen 08:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights was parted in 1466 with the 2nd Peace of Thorn. The eastern part (except the Archbishopric of Warmia) stayed under the Teutonic Order (they became Polish vassals until 1657), and the western part (including the eastern Warmia) was annexed by Poland. That is what these German Hanseatic cities wanted. For that purpose they founded the Prussian Confederation because they thought they would get more autonomy as Polish citizens than as Teutonic citizens. The entire country was still called Prussia, regardless to which political union the parts belonged. --Der Eberswalder 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, with addition that those were not just German cities, but Polish gentry as well. Confederation was founded by mainly German-speaking cities and mainly Polish-speaking gentry. Both kinds of citizens considered themselves _probably_ primarily as "Prussians", however. Some people argued, that if not the partitions, there would be Prussian nation on the shore of the Baltic - however during XIX century Polish-speaking Prussians become Poles, and German-speaking Prussians become Germans. Szopen 12:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It is comparable to the Swiss. They are neither Italian nor French nor German, they are Swiss. --Der Eberswalder 13:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's NOT! During Kopernik's time Prussia was not a country (for the next few centuries) and Switzerland was. He was born in the Polish city of Toruń (not part of Prussia till 1792) and spent most of his life in the Polish province of Warmia. Space Cadet 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, everything and everybody was, is, and will be Polish - especially English Wikipedia. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sure, ridicule me, accuse me of stuff, put words in my mouth, instead of answering any of my points. Pretty low. Space Cadet 04:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
He did not answer your points probably because they are (sorry to say) rubbish. Place of birth and living do not define nationality. What would you say about Jews who had lived in Poland for centuries? They didn't even have their own country, so maybe there were no Jews at all until 1947? Or what about Poles in the era of Partitions of Poland? 62.29.136.15 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Prussian Law, Culmer Kulmer Law, Kulmer Handfeste Citizenship meant being or becoming a burgher a citizen of a city ( not countryship). The Hanse cities Elbing Danzig Thorn etc were city republics and a person became a citizen of that particular city. A requirement was Deutscher Zunge (German language). Sample of some laws valid for all of Prussia (East and West) as written down:

...in allen gerichten, zu culmischen rechte gelegen, soll man klagen und richten zu deutscher sprache. 1594 Culm

...im ganzen lande Preussen soll vermoege culmischer handfeste einerley culmische muenze seyn, von klarem und reinem silber, dergestalt, das 60 schillinge 1 mark waegen sollen. 1594 Culm

Preußische Landrecht:...im ganze lande zu Preussen soll einerley Culmische pfund, scheffel, tonne, ellen und allerhand ander maße und gewichte seyn... printed in Rostock 1620 Labbas 19 January 2007

Copernicus was as Polish as Reinhold Messner (from South Tyrol) is an Italian. He is, in a way, and he is not. Messner is Tyrolian from Tyrol and Copernicus was Prussian from Prussia. Easy.
--Der Eberswalder 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Is our article on Prussian Confederation wrong? It says:
"formed on 21 February 1440 by a group of 53 gentry and clergy and 19 Prussian cities, under the leadership of the Hanseatic cities of Danzig (Gdańsk), Elbing (Elbląg), and Thorn (Toruń)."
or maybe the section on the Thirteen Year War in the Royal Prussia article is wrong, it says;
"During the Thirteen Years' War ("War of the Cities"), the Prussian Confederation, led by the cities of Gdańsk (Danzig), Elbląg (Elbing), and Toruń (Thorn), as well as gentry from Chełmno Land (Kulmerland) asked, in February 1454, for Polish support against the Teutonic Order's rule. The rebellion also included major cities from the eastern part of the Order's lands, such as Kneiphof (Knipawa), a part of Königsberg (Królewiec). The war ended in October 1466 with the Second Treaty of Toruń, which provided for the Order's cession to the Polish crown of its rights over the western half of Prussia, including Eastern Pomerania (Pomerelia), Elbląg (Elbing), Malbork (Marienburg), and Chełmno (Kulm) districts."
and our Peace of Toruń (1466) article states;
"In the treaty the Teutonic Order lost the territories of Pomerelia (Eastern Pomerania) with Gdańsk, Chełmno Land with Chełmno and Toruń, the mouth of the Vistula with Elbląg and Malbork (Marienburg), and Warmia (Ermland) with Olsztyn (Allenstein). The Order also acknowledged the rights of the Polish Crown for Prussia's western half, subsequently known as Polish or Royal Prussia. Warmia became autonomous Prince-Bishopric. Eastern Prussia, later called Duchy of Prussia remained with the Teutonic Order until 1525 and the grandmaster was supposed to swear a personal oath to the king of Poland and furnish him with military. In order to avoid giving the oath, the grand masters simply made it their practice not to visit to Prussia."

Multiple edits to Nicolaus Copernicus today

Please review this article as several anonymous IPs struck this article today and did a lot of edits. I tried to keep up with them but some edits may have slipped through. Ronbo76 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. My hunch is that many recent-change-patrollers shy away from potential content-related conflicts. Though the IP was skilled in the ref-system, it's hard to make out what he or she was tampering with the brackets. Preview or Wiki-sandbox could really help in his case.
Regarding the content changes, I must agree in part with the IP. As far as I can remember (almost a year ago), Copernicus's mother was German and his father in all likelihood Polish or sth. Because of this, the source shouldn't be used to assert a nationality of Copernicus's family. But the rest of his edits (like the signature in the very first sentence and the general behaviour) were clearly unconstructive. Sciurinæ 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not too keen on the, thus a son. . ., nationality sentence either. But, this page has been on my watchlist since vandal IPs struck it a while back. When it popped up on my watchlist with edits by anonymous IPs, I reviewed the history to see what sections had been affected. And, yes, you are right that even in preview mode, it was difficult to discern what section had really been tampered with - the edits and refs were that good. In essence, I defaulted to the advice another user gave me about vandal patrol: if you can't figure out what are good edits versus bad (but do know that bad edits did occur), find a previous edition you are relatively certain about and revert to it. Then, let the white knight editors do their thing.
To get back to the nationality statement, I determined it had been there for several revisions. Suddenly it and another section were getting hit. The nationality statement should have been addressed here to potentially avoid edit wars as then users like me could discern what the general conscensus was. Unfortunately in my mind that sentence while poorly written does have a truth element to it, i.e., it would be similar to saying the U.S. was under the thumb of the King of England at one time.
I do appreciate that you approve of my humble efforts. Yesterday, the WP:WDEFCON, aka Wiki DefCon Meter, went to two late in the afternoon just as I was getting ready for a meeting. It was difficult to keep up with all my watchlist pages getting hit but I stayed in the battle as long as I could (even delaying dinner). Cheers, Ronbo76 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was the entry original signature Nicolaus Coppernic [1] by 207.245.84.70 (17 January) removed? It is an additional information. And why was the article protected anyway? I see no reason for this. He was simply a Prussian, neither a German nor a Pole. Compare it to the Swiss people, same principle. --Der Eberswalder 13:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

the Original Signature tidbit was added by a user who was evading a block for POV pushing, personal attacks, violation of 3RR, revert-warring etc. etc. and was unverifiable. If somebody could go to the Archives he was claiming have the signature on file, then sure it can be added back in. But then of course it must also be dated and no other archive have an older dated signature on file that differs from the one claimed by this blocked user. If we were to allow this to be in the article without being referenced properly, anyone could make a improper reference like that for any topic. for instance 2+2=5, as recorded in the Archives of Varmia's Diocese. No Original Research means it should be from a published source, if we could find one then it would be great to add it back in, but then again whether his signature really matters is another dispute.
--Jadger 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nicolaus Coppernic

Der Eberswalder, About the Nicolaus Coppernic signatures was publicized in Polish research by prof Marian Biskup. He is famous and realiable scientist at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun. Short decription of this research is on page: [2] Look for: “Z badań prof. Mariana Biskupa,” at the bottom of the page. You need some trusted interpreter but the administrators knows each other well. AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.68.39.229 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Andrew, please stop evading your block for violation of policies 3RR, NPA, revert-warring, NPOV, etc. etc. You have now been blocked for a whole month, you will get nothing accomplished until you obey the rules.
--Jadger 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Polish astronomer

There is no doubt he was Polish astronomer, according to encyclopedia Britannica. Its removal is inappropriate and near to vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following sources consider Copernicus to be a Polish astronomer:
--The International Astronomical Union (IAU)
--All versions of Wikipedia except German and English
--Encyclopedia Britannica
--Microsoft Encarta
Is it prudent to assume that the last two users who locked this page, User:Richardshusr and User:Kusma (see protection log), both of whom have written articles pertaining to Germany, are objective authorities on this subject?

Yawn! You think that's the first time someone's thought of that? This argument comes up all the time; it really is better just not to mention nationality. You may believe you are correct, but if you insist on pressing your claims you'll be commiting yourself to a revert war which will waste lots of time and end only in the page getting admin protected. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Original research is now the policy of wikipedia ? Britannica is not the source anymore ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I await the moment when all the people in the world will be Earthish or Globish and there will be no dispute on the topic which nation can acquire the splendor of an individual. 83.9.14.35 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all the world knows Copernicus was Polish — except for Wikipedia. No one questions that Leonardo da Vinci was Italian, though Italy did not then exist as a state. But some question the Polish nationality of Copernicus, citizen of a Polish Kingdom that certainly did exist, and who defended Olsztyn against the Teutonic Order!

logologist|Talk 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The dispute goes far beyond wikipedia and has started long before computers existed. To decide this dispute, books were written, monuments erected and celebrations held. You can't believe Wikipedia is to join a side, do you? Has NPOV lost all its meaning on Wikipedia? You also can't have read the talk page if you believe that Wikipedia is alone in not proclaiming he was Polish. Worse, you might have read the talk page and decided to restart the same discussion over and over to make it impossible for anyone to read the whole page and cause everyone trying to fall asleep and drive others to despair by its Sisyphean repetition of arguments. Sciurinæ 12:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Shall we take up a discussion of the supposed Polish ancestry of the German, Friedrich Nietzsche? I think that has about as much merit as endeavoring to make a German out of Copernicus. As I mentioned in the "Copernicus" article's "Nationality" section — in a comment which you saw fit to delete — Polish history is replete with patriotic Poles of German extraction who have contributed much to every walk of Polish life. One of the more striking examples is the German-born and -trained Admiral Józef Unrug, who saved the Polish Navy at the outbreak of World War II and, on becoming a German prisoner-of-war, refused to speak German to German World War I brothers-in-arms and Nazi bigwigs who sought to win him over to the Nazi cause. This, when Unrug never fully mastered Polish. In short, ancestry and language-spoken do not necessarily, of themselves, define a person's identity. Copernicus' defense of Olsztyn against the Teutonic Order sufficiently demonstrates his loyalties. logologist|Talk 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nietzsche? The myth of his Polish ancestry was disproven. Maybe Chopin would be more comparable concerning questionable single-nationality. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You should't forget that the concept of nationality like we use it today wasn't valid at the time Copernicus lived. He wrote in Latin, but there is evidence that he was also Polish/German bilingual, and the surename of his mother is pretty obviously German - that doesn't make him German, though. He was a Polish citizen of German ancestery in a time which didn't care about that - it cared rather about what he wrote and that he was a cleric... I think both sides should be mentioned, and maybe there should be also a paragraph about both Polish and German nationalists who refuse to see his complex family/nationality situation (which was, again, normal for that time) and try to pocket him for their own purposes. Qubux 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality categories must be restored

As it is standard for people to be categorised by nationality, excluding categories here does not have an appearance of neutrality at all, but is prima facie evidence that Wikipedia is taking a biased point of view. If necessary add multiple nationalities. I don't give a hoot about what nationality he was, but the current "solution" is no solution at all, but rather an admission of failure and an accomodation with biased agendas - and anyone familiar with how Wikipedia normally categorises people is liable to notice that. CalJW 00:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the previous discussion here before taking drastic measures on this subject such as putting up tags. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added a POV tag, due to the deliberate removal of the nationality information, without which this cannot be a full and unbiased article. CalJW 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This article contains more information on the subject's nationality than any other I've seen on wikipedia (did you overlook the section?). Readers are to make up their own minds what nationality he has. To recall: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." It is therefore not our job to assert any of them, or even the intermediate "Cat:Polish astronomer, Cat:German astronomer", as you suggested when you said "If necessary add multiple nationalities". It is also in line with Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

And an accuracy tag because the article is deliberately incomplete and incorrect and thus seeks to mislead people about the issues relevant to the life and reputation of Copernicus. When I last saw this article - a long time ago because I have no interest in this topic - as I remember things the article seemed complete and informative, and it needs to be returned to that state. But I can't do that myself because I don't have any expertise on the topic. CalJW 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns about accuracy, please don't hesitate to point them out. Omitting the assertion of nationality is not misleading at all. Quite the opposite, the assertion of nationality is misleading people about the issues relevant to the life and reputation of Copernicus. I've partly compared the state of the article in the version of one year ago and the difference is relatively small. Since you admit that you didn't have "any expertise on the topic" and because the article certainly isn't "deliberately incomplete and incorrect", I've also removed that tag. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wimiwimi 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)NEVER KNEW THAT HIS NAME WAS... wat u just saidWimiwimi 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any expertise on the topic, and no interest, but claim that the article is "deliberately incomplete" and "seeks to mislead people"? And you "remember" it having been "complete and informative" "a long time ago". I'd say these statements of yours deserve to be tagged for POV and lack of accuracy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"The astronomer who formulated..."

The current version of the opener is:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the astronomer who formulated the first modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.

That may be a little too Eurocentric. Perhaps the following more modest statement would put the work in the context of the development of European science:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first European astronomer to formulate a modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.

I don't have any specific examples of non-European thoughts on helicentricism, but in the absence of an exhaustive trawl I'd prefer to remain conservative in the claim. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationality according to Britannica and Encarta

Both Britannica and Encarta are major encyclopaedias and both classify Copernicus as a Polish astronomer. Now, why do you (Jadger) ask for citation [3] supporting this sentence: "Today he is often classified as Polish". Are you aware of any major encyclopedia (other than our wikipedia here) that does not classify him as a Pole ? --Lysytalk 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the article does not say anything about encyclopedias for the sentence in question. The sentence in question is in fact created by weasel words. to state the sentence in question: Today he is often classified as Polish, in part based on the location of his birthplace in then and present-day Poland, though not only limited to that.
now, "often classified"? often classified by who? you say encyclopedias, but that's not what that sentence states. also, "often classified", how much is "often"? because one can easily say that he is "often" classified as German as "often" is a variable dependent on each person's views of what "often means". For instance, I often fill my car up with gas, but I also often use the bathroom, does that mean that I do both those the same amount of times? of course not. In order to verify that he is often classified as Polish, we need a hell of a lot of sources that all corroborate the same thing.
--Jadger 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Would "most often" be more precise then ? --Lysytalk 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
not really, because you would have to make a catalogue of all books that state something on his nationality, and tally up the ones that say he is of each nationality, and then you could say "most often _____" as that is clearly majority rules. you will either have to find more sources to back up your claim, or change the sentence to "Britannica and Encarta both state Copernicus is Polish". but that is hardly encyclopedic, as encyclopedias should rely on their rivals for information.
--Jadger 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the sentence in question again, and to my non-native understanding of English, the "often" clearly refers to the second part of the sentence. I'll try to rephrase to make it clearer. --Lysytalk 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The Guidance on style for the lead section states that it should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and that includes the fact that he is honoured by both 'contestants'. The main points of the article are well covered, though maybe economy side being just a link is under-representative. As his nationality is not mentioned there, the last paragraph could include the fact that he was born into a well off family that ensured a good education and his style of living (burgher). Then stating that he has been honoured by both Germany and Poland and that the debate surrounding his nationality is ongoing would tie up those areas of the article which are not encompassed already. Any offers for writing it up?--Alf melmac 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for Wikipedia to mention the question nationality in the opener, because Copernicus' claim to fame is not his being born in this or that nation or region, but his existence as a cosmopolitan European cosmologist, immersed in the philosophy of his times, in communication with the best minds available to any European at the time, who formulated the first modern heliocentric cosmological model. The question of his actual nationality (while being a legitimate one) isn't important enough to put into the opener. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point about his nationality not being his claim to fame and I appreciate that the purpose of the lead is not give 'a taster' to the article, however I understated the non-inclusion of the coin reform, that does need mention. We also need to decide whether that stublet gets merged or not. I must disagree about nationality not being an important point, checks again to see exactly how long that section is :p) having appeared on both of those nations' coinage would seem a good way of couching it. That may also provide the added benefit of assuaging the continual Polish-German push-pull that the article experiences.--Alf melmac 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate is funny: how can you debate about nationality of a person from 15th century? The concept of nationality was born at the end of 18th century while the French revolution. So, Copernicus couldn't be Polish or German: he was a Prussian inferior of Polish king. 83.30.203.195 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) rorio

Nationality

He was obviously an Italian. He worked in Italy, he realized heliocentrisism in Italy, he was an Italian astronomer. --Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.54.136 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 November 2007

Please add the link to the Ido Wikipedia

io:Nikolaus Kopernicus - Thank you,João Xavier, from Ido Wikipedia 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus was an astrologer -- put this fact in the article

Why does the fact that Copernicus was a fully confirmed astrologer keep getting deleted from the article? You all aren't trying to whitewash history are you? Astrology and astronomy were still largely one and the same thing during Copernicus' time; the split between the two fields wasn't that far off from his death date, though. --172.145.6.40 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not but astrologer in modern meaning is an unscientific field. It is prediction of future by observing of stars. If Copernicus was practicing this kind of art ?--202.167.254.68 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably, Johannes Kepler as well. As science progresses, the view on each scientific discipline changes as well over time. --Der Eberswalder 11:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If Copernicus or Keppler did not attempt to predict future by observing stars we should not name them astrologers. We need use modern standards and modern meanings. It can be made a notation that contemporaries could name then astrologer for the reason of different terminology, that’s all. AS>

Astronomy in this period includes astrology, which should be mentioned because the terminology has changed. And astrology was not only about predicting the future. It was about studying the interactions between the skies and the earth more generally, including forecasting the weather. As for predicting events, a great deal of astrology was more concerned with elevated probability than with certainty. In this way it was closer to empirical science than most pro-science versions of history like to admit. It would be useful to find out exactly where Copernicus stood in the spectrum though. Around this time Ficino and Mirandola were also dealing with controversies in astrology and where it could fit among the respectable scholarly pursuits. User 24:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copernicus did not practice predictive astrologer and I would not term him to have been on. Kepler, on the other hand, vigorously defended astrological predictions and did in fact cast astrological horoscopes of various sorts. Please see: Kepler's Witch by James A. Connor, Sheila Rabin's "Kepler Attitude Toward Pico and the Anti-Astrology Polemic," Renaissance Quarterly 50.3, Scott Hendrix, "God's Deaf and Dumb Instruments: Albert the Great's Speculum Astronomiae and Four Centuries of Readers," an unpublished dissertation at the University of Tennesse, the work of Darrell Rutkin. As for astrology's rejection as an academic discipline, this process did not begin until the seventeenth century, and as late as 1799 there was a chair of astrology at the University of Bologna. See S.J. Tester's History of Astrology in the West. I suggest that we move beyond our modernist biases on this point, and attempt to consider the way our predecessors viewed their world, when writing about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.151.243 (talk) 17:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Doubled fragment

Who will remove the doubled fragment: "The father of Copernicus, possibly a Germanized Slav [8], had been a citizen of Cracow, but left the (then) capital of Poland in 1460 to move to Thorn/Toruń (German/Polish). That Hanseatic city was also part of the Prussian Confederation, which, some decades before Copernicus' birth, had tried to gain independence from the Teutonic Knights who had ruled the area for two hundred years, but imposed high taxes that were hindering economic development. This led to the Thirteen Years' War and the Second Treaty of Thorn of 1466: Thorn/Toruń and Prussia's western part, called "Royal Prussia", became connected to the Kingdom of Poland, which had supported the uprising, while the eastern part remained under the administration of the Teutonic Order, later to become "Ducal Prussia"

from the article? --202.167.254.68 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit. Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo in caption

"Statue of a seated Copernicus holding a armillary sphere" - ∅ (∅), 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit. Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Status as Lutheran "saint"

I would request that the article include the fact that Copernicus is commemorated as a teacher by the Lutheran Church on May 24, and that he be added to the Category:Lutheran saints. Thank you. John Carter 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit. Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seven parts of Copernican theory

The "seven parts of Copernicus' theory" could use some improvement. Part 1 (There is no one center in the universe) seems to contradict Part 3 (The center of the universe is near the sun). I suggest changing them to:

The major parts of Copernican theory are:
Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
The center of the universe is near the Sun.
Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.

The existing seven parts were quoted in this Wired article [[4]], but I think that the article is a little misleading. Roger 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit. Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a coward, but I can count. The text says "seven parts" but only six are on the list. I won't try to fix the article because I don't know what the right fix is, not having access to the Compendium. If the Compendium has seven points, the seventh should be listed; if there are different ways of reading the Compendium, then the word "seven" should be changed to "six." Martin X. Moleski, SJ 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Quotes

The third of the paragraphs attributed to Copernicus is not by him. It is from the Foreword to De Revolutionibus by Andreas Osiander, and it's claim that the task of astronomy is merely to "save the appearances" is famously at odds with the pains taken by Copernicus to argue that the Earth really does move (e.g., in the second quoted paragraph). Please can someone correct this mis-attribution?

It would be useful to be specify the source of the other quoted paragraphs (otherwise they might be read as one extract). The first is from Copernicus' preface. It is also a bit misleading, as it might appear that C is about to deny that he is trying to do anything so "insane". (Actually the thrust of the rest of Preface is "but truth will out and history will vindicate me").

The second quoted paragraph is from De Revolutionibus Book 1, Chapter 8.

PaddyLeahy 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I've been around long enough to do it myself. I just deleted the Osiander quote; it doesn't seem appropriate in a list of quotes celebrating Dr C. Sometime I'll come back and add something authentic by C. to compensate, e.g. his praise of the Sun.

PaddyLeahy 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unecessary intrusion

I strongly object to that. So we don't care to inform of what had been the predominant thought for millenia before this guy's idea. Fine, I'll fuck off. No wonder wiki is full of shit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.147.29 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Gingerich, Owen (14). in John L. Heilbron: "Copernicus, Nicholas", The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195112296. “Copernicus was born 19 February 1473 in Torun, a Hanseatic town that had shortly before transferred its allegiance to the Polish monarchy.” 


Copernicus's father's occupation

This is my first post on W. - Just wanted to mention that I don't think C's father was actually a porn star, though I could be wrong! Will leave it to a more experienced editor to make the change.Unclemarkle 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! You certainly weren't wrong, this was a case of vandalism. It has been reverted, thanks for your note! --JoanneB 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Town names

In this edit, the editor said: Application of Gdansk (Danzig) rule again. Explain please.--Toolsbadly 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed three of the Polish cites as the ones I checked either then went on to say soemthing about Italy - erm, that is exactly the same problem with "Poland" (called Kingdom of Poland as Bohemia is for the historical area, rather than "Czech Republic" etc.) [ Szymon Starowolski wrote in the first large Polish biography, Scriptorum Polonicorum, Nicolaus Copernicus, Torunii in Prusia natus, patre Nicolao Copernico, matre vero quae erat germana sonor Lucae a Watzelrod Toruniesnsis, episcopi Varmiensis, praeclare de Repulica Polonorum meriti in causa Cruciferorum]. Would anyone like to point me to a map made in the 15 century which originally has the word "Italy" used for the area? Another one that I removed had inconsistencies in naming - Bohemian then stating "another Czech"... I have not finished going through these sources but I'm not betting that I'll find any difference in approach. Icannot trace "Central Europe Journal", ISBN number might have helped.--18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As I am unable to check any of the other sources, I did a search for "Copernicus+born+hanseatic" and came up with three pages of books which see reference thus, the removal of a atmospheric-descriptor only to replace it with a nationalistic-location is silly, many of the books that I came up with have BOTH. Sure we don't call the USA by any trade organisation name, but then, we're not talking the modern country of Poland, and I'd sure as hell object if you described Queen Alliquippa as born in the United States, which is effectively what is being done here. Outrageous.--SmallPotatoes 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen Alliquippa was born before USA was founded. Kopernik was born hundreds of years after Poland was founded. I don't get your example ? Italy-that is the name of penisula not only country. Article written today uses today's terms, so people write that somebody went to Italy, the region. --StepPol 18:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, neither was Poland "founded" as the Poland that exists today, that's a gross oversimplification, this in not the en.simple, we can give the readers the real deal. No problem with calling cities by their current names, no problem calling countries that have not changed at all the modern name, Poland is not a simple case. here's some (simplified but they illustrate the point adequately) historical maps. Though the United States were founded, the first Polish 'state' was created or formed, that's the sort of oversimplification a definitive edition should avoid, which is what we should be striving for, we should choose our words very carefully. The city of Torun was most definately a Hanseatic League member, the country had definately 'recently switched' to the polish crown, these facts, carefully worded were meant to give life to a sentence otherwise devoid of other cultural (read as influencing) factors. Painting a picture in words for those who can appreciate it. I wouldn't have had a problem with you altering the line, or to remove the 'recently switched' to add "Kingdom of Poland" if that is the given title for that land area for that date, that might have been in some way trying to find a compromise if one must be made, but as stands, it's BORN IN POLAND, no cultural points of reference, no mentions of the richness, habit or influence of the area, meh, as it stands it's 'let's keep it obfuscated and nice and simple for the folks at home'. See also the point I make about being able to find enough cites for Hanseatic to for us to not have a cite war.--SmallPotatoes 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to do "Italy" - again it's oversimplification, if one says he went to study in Florence rather than Siena, it not only makes a big difference in understanding what kind of education he might have had and the culture he would then be influenced by, but also avoids the misreading that will invariably occur if an unqualified "Italy" is used, he studied in Padua.--SmallPotatoes 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are using personal pages of a German citizen to prove that "Poland is not a simple case"?. Is that allowed on Wikipedia ? I could cite many pages from Polish people as well. I think its better to use serious works. Kingdom of Poland is ok with me, as the link now leads to modern Poland. --StepPol 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove it is :s I forgot to reply why "Italy" is insufficient - posted above.--SmallPotatoes 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Italy in detail would insufficient-but Italy is not the matter here, as I wrote before-it is the name of general location. When writing about the studies-you are right, specific name should be given. But when writing about other things Italy is of no importance.--StepPol 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that edit was good, thanks, and I like the linking. I'd still like to press for the inclusion of "Hanseatic", it does in itself give info as to the kind of place he was to grow up in. The amount of cites you provided is too much and clutters, cite seven or whichever you think the most respected and/or checkable, with the previous cite for Hanseatic would be a nice partnering, if you think that's state-able and do-able.--SmallPotatoes 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Poles

The List of Poles claims that Poles "by 2005 had attained a world-wide population of over 53 million" when Poland itself had a population of less than 39 million. The list, among many others, also claims "Mikołaj Kopernik (Nicolaus Copernicus)" as a Pole. As long as this claims persists, the List of Germans will contain Nikolaus Kopernikus (and others). -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, as far as the first part, do you know what "world-wide" means? # of people of particular group world wide > # of people of particular group in a particular country, since # of people of particular group world wide = # of people of particular group in a particular country + # of people of particular group in all the other countries. Gauss is rolling over in his grave.radek 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the second part: no, it won't. Space Cadet 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

rest of the world????

Copernicus' theories were based on aryabhatta's

Provide the references that Copernicus read Aryabhatta (whoever he was) or at least knew his works. Szopen 14:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish and German versions of Copernicus's name in the lead section

They were added a long time ago and, if I remember correctly, after some discussion removed again. Now they're added again, without prior consensus to include them. Though I don't know what to think of them, the empty link would have to be edited out anyway, so I've chosen to remove them altogether again from the sensitive lead and would like to ask the person who added them politely to keep them out until there's agreement to include them. Sciurinæ 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's decided to have both the names in those languages, please don't link the Polish name as it goes to a disambiguation page which is more than irritating.--Alf melmac 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nicolaus Copernicus is the name under which his major work was published, and by which he is known. There is no point to add other name versions in the intro. The Nationality section covers the use of names etc. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Polish and German names should be given together; but I have no preference when and where.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment, the names are both (somewhat awkwardly maybe?) put into the nationality-section. Sciurinæ 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus about the nationality

There is ongoing long-time edit war and it should be good to resolve it. So I propose consensus dispute. It seems there are several formulations, please express your opinion by supporting or opposing statement. Please respect good faith during this dispute. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am adding one more option. Also, I will cast three votes to stress that there are three solutions which will satisfy me - if that's not OK, please remove all my votes except one marked with (+) Szopen 15:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please hold! The format of this poll needs to be fixed first, with clear preferences, like "first choice" and "second choice," or "strong support" and "Weak support" or something. I believe there are templates available for that purpose. Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion seem to cover the issue. Currently, there are 4 versions (after one was removed), and all are supported by the first two voters. Does this mean "we want all" or "we accept anything"? -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone considers this poll binding in any way, so I would not worry about the rules at this point. Yes, we could discuss possible poll rules, hold a poll whether to hold a poll at all, hold a poll whether to hold a poll whether to hold a poll etc etc. But that would be silly. Please relax, have fun, and join the discussion.
Sure, I have fun and relax while others don't discuss rules, but enforce theirs. Balcer removed an option. Tulkolahten canvassed on many talk pages, totally reverted me twice (the 2nd within the same minute), and complained about me on an admin talk [5]. So much about consensus and good faith. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As for multiple votes, they simply indicate that any one of those options is fine to the people who voted that way. Balcer 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is binding, but consensus is once consensus ;-) Remember this Gdanks vote. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To express the degree of agreement, a '+' is a good idea. The scale can also be broadened by replacing it with numbers like '(1st)' for first choice and '(2nd)' and '(3rd)' for the second and third one respectively. Sciurinæ 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This vote is totally unprepared and unneeded

This vote is totally unprepared to decide anything, In a proper voter there should be for example discussions on what to vote on (i.e. which options are there), how to count the votes, and how long the vote goes. Neither of which was done here. Doing it after the vote will just lead into more discussions and fighting. The vote was also not announced anywhere besides this talk page and possibly some selected user talk pages. Plus, this topic is a hot candidate for POV pushing, meatpuppets, etc. Overall, I believe this vote will not solve anything. Also, didn't we have a vote/discussion on this before, and the consensus was not to use the nationality in the lead? Why do we need another vote (except that someone did not like the outcome of the previous vote). This will be lots of discussions but not solve anything -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this vote was totally unprepared, and thus is totally meaningless. No one will be bound by its results. Still, I think this poll will be useful to get a basic idea of where the people currently interested in this page stand. If there is a significant indication that the current concensus version (no nationality) is no longer supported, then we may start formal voting procedures. But it does not look like this will happen, as the option that is getting the most votes is the one that does not mention nationality (i.e. the status quo). Balcer 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What the next, winner is Polish astronomer but it is close to no nationality. I would prefer Britannica of course. Can we start formal vote between those two or we will respect this ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Eight in favour of "Polish", four against (one third). Six in favour of "European", three against (one third). So how can a decision in favour of "Polish" be "per talk"? And since when was there any agreement that the "vote" would decide anything? The previous agreement was only disrupted by some unestablished users undermining the previous and viable compromise. Now I hear the comparison of this "consensus dispute" to the "Gdansk/vote" coming from the creator of the "consensus dispute" who spends a lot of his time deleting the German-language names in Austrian-Czech-related articles in a way, well, he wouldn't love the Gdansk/vote be applied in those articles at all. Against the grain of the previous settlement, he voted for "Polish" here and against all other choices, and inserted "Polish" in the article at a time when both "Polish" and "European" had the same per cent of agreement/disagreement. I do understand why there are votes about the existence/non-existence of articles (VfD). I wouldn't know how to find a compromise (half-delete?) or to describe the arguments for and against the existence of the article somewhere in the article. The same goes for the Gdansk/vote. You can't put in an elaborate explanation of the POVs as naming of an article or city, nor can you leave the name out. The same goes, of course, for article naming. But in the case of Copernicus, it is entirely functional to leave out the (nationality) adjective in the lead section rather than assert one, and describe the views per WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view policy as a section. Because we need a geographical limitation in the sentence concerned, as explained by Alf, it is perfectly feasible to agree on the higher, geographical level, the continent Europe. In fact, it is the only thing we can say with certainty. Sciurinæ 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously Tulkolahten now turns to revert warring here as well, giving up on the "consensus dispute", which means that the only person with strong belief in the significance of the "vote" has changed his mind now, too. The intention of this "consensus dispute" was not to settle the dispute as claimed, but evidently to serve as the basis for overriding the previous solution. It still had some value in showing where people stood on the issue. Sciurinæ 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer

Support:

Oppose:

  • Alf 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • total lie--Jadger 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Represents sloppiness and the effects of Polish POV. To avoid double standards [6] most 19th century Poles have to be called Russians then also, which I can hardly imagine. See one Polish editor stating this and then doing only that -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Per Jadger. He was more German than Polish, also, Polish was not a true nationality at the time, unfortunately, and it would have to mean giving him the title of Russian, as well.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia describes (well-known) disputes, not chooses the more popular side. Sciurinæ 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. The statement is in some sense true, but if you start the article that way you need to qualify that "Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer by nationality, perhaps of Prussian, Polish, or German ethnic background..." and that's not where you want your lead sentence to go. 70.15.116.59 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments:


Nicolaus Copernicus was the astronomer

Support:

  • Szopen 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Balcer 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • --Richard 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Neutral, but in connection with "first heliocentric", it downplays earlier non-European efforts.-- Matthead discuß!     O       03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Darwinek 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding nationality, this is one of the best options. But it wouldn't comply with the sentence as it is now. However, as this is called "nationality about consensus", I'll choose "support". Sciurinæ 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • General support. I'm not endorsing your specific sentence here, but you need to get out what Copernicus is best known for right away. A few sentences on you can say that "Copernicus was Polish by nationality, a subject and defender of the Polish king. His ethnic and cultural background is less certain, because his native Torun was a part of Royal Prussia, a province whose Old Prussian heritage was considerably Germanised and Polonised through its conquest by the Teutonic Order and subsequent incorporation into Poland. As his fame has grown and boundaries have continued to change in his native land, Copernicus has been claimed by Poles, Prussians, Germans, and the Church as a stellar revolutionary thinker." 70.15.116.59 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • Alf 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • --Molobo 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Neutral, but there was no dispute with the regular "European" label either, and this is obviously going to cause many unexpierenced editors to add 'Polish' or 'German', thus making a huge problem which was already solved in the best way possible, and its impossible to argue him as other than European. efforts.-- Matthead discuß!     O       03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Hmm, I always thought you were in favour of this choice, Wiki alf. Sciurinæ 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If I could reconstruct the sentence to allow for the comparative further afield without having "European" before "astronomer" I would be happy with this, but the comparison needs to be stated clearly and this option makes that trickier. You see at the moment the first line reads "...was an astronomer who formulated the first explicitly heliocentric model of the solar system", now I consider that wrong, I think that honour is Aristarchus', Copernicus is the first European astronomer to formulate a modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.--Alf melmac 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
it would be better from Europe rather then European as it could imply European identity, something that is highly controversial and politically loaded.--Molobo 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that.--Alf melmac 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the current text "an astronomer..." with discussion of where he was born and where he worked coming much later (i.e. not in the lead) --Richard 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Nicolaus Copernicus was a European astronomer

Support:

  • Szopen 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Balcer 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Alf 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (+) but really needs to be "...was the first European astronomer..." otherwise the lead line needs to be thrown away.
  • --Jadger 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. As per Alf, longtime consensus, neutral both towards non-European efforts and the centuries-old dispute about nationality, ethnicity, citizenship.-- Matthead discuß!     O       03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Per Alf. This has been the best way to keep from engaging in more rampant POV disputes and nationality wars. Why we would change....is purely against the foundations of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, aside from simple reasoning, which some people seem to unfortunetely lack in this age. With the mix of his nationalities being German with an unknown amount of Polish blood, and the almost Russian. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "The only thing we can say with certainty is that he was a European."[7]. Sciurinæ 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • Too broad.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Molobo 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Spain, Italy, England? Let's be reasonable here and make a text that is reasonably specific. And don't even start with "East European", because then I'd have to look up where Hungary and Romania were at the time and my head would start aching. 70.15.116.59 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Using the words "Polish" and "German" are anachronistic to the subject, as well as grossly over-simplifying things, hence I feel that this is the only sensible solution, as there is a need in the lead section to compare his theory with those of astronomers further afield than Europe. As I stated above in the section about the lead, there may be some merit if we mention the recognition that both countries have given him rather than drop on either side of the fence.--Alf melmac 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Europe is too broad and not possible to define-was he an astronomer of Norway, Moldavia, Turkey? --Molobo 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • it's not too broad, and we are not saying he is from Norway, Moldavia or Turkey (the latter isnt in Europe FYI), we are simply stating he is from Europe. In no way does saying he is from Europe mean he is from any of those nations you mentioned. We are discussing the lead, not the whole article, later on it can go into detail about where he is from, we are only discussing the lead here.--Jadger 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Jadger Turkey is in Europe, especially during Mikołaj Kopernik's life. Please consult informative sources before making such definite claims. As it seems such term would involve so many different cultures and traditions that it isn't really informative in my view.--Molobo 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Turkey not in Europe? Wow, what ignorance! I would never appear on the WIKI again, if I was him! Space Cadet 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Time to say good bye, Space Cadet, some will miss you. During Copernicus' lifetime, in 1520, the Ottoman Empire covered not only over parts of Europe, but also parts of Asia and Africa [8]. Was Copernicus an Egyptian astronomer like Ptolemy? The History of Poland (1385–1569) providee only this map of Poland_and_Lithuania_1387 showing that in 1387, Poland or "lenna Korony"(?) was "married to" the Black Sea coast, somewhere near modern day Turkey and Moldavia, covering who knows how many modern states. As Catholics get a second marriage not by divorce but only by "death do us part", one assumes that before Poland's wedding to the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea must have deceased and turned into the Dead Sea? Anyway, the birthplace of Copernicus, Thorn, was was founded outside of Poland and remained there for a quarter of a millennium, getting under Polish influence only few years before his birth. Funnily, the word Gdansk appears where the town of Danzig was for over half a millennium. So, as per Molobo, Poland was "too broad and not possible to define". If a Polish astronomer, was he from Lwow, Bialogrod or Kilia? Even Moldavia or Turkey? Or rather a well defined area known as Prussia which was partitioned a few years before his birth?-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Still here. Never patronized anybody that Turkey was not in Europe. Space Cadet 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is probably one of the more important ones on Wikipedia in the area of science, and this is the level of argument we are stooping to? To give you an idea of what is at stake here, this talk page was mentioned in mainstream media at least once (in New Yorker, one of the prominent American magazines). Wikipedia's credibility is being judged by what level of argument is being employed here. So, please stop, and get serious, unless you want to become better known as the proponent of childish arguments like the one just provided above. Whatever option you want to advocate, find sources to back it up. If you can show that scholarly works have reached a concensus and refer to him as a Prussian astronomer, we can use that formulation. Otherwise, all we are engaging in is original research, which is obviously not allowed. Balcer 02:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the rant is about above by Matthead-surely just because Ottoman Empire had other possesions doesn't cancel out its European ones. As to Poland-it was made out of many faiths not only Catholic, please consult your sources before making such definitive statements. As to Torun-it was a old Slavic settlement invaded and occupied by Teutonic Knights.

--Molobo 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish-German astronomer

Support:

Oppose:

  • people will then argue over which comes first, will get us nowhere.--Jadger 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • doubtfull, German identity was in process of formation back then, it would be more correct to name him Prussian then German if one would want to argue like that.--Molobo 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Looks neutral, but as per Jadger, it is a starting point for controversy and will be used as stepstone to remove the German part, see Balcer's removal of the "German astronomer" option and remarks of him and Molobo.-- Matthead discuß!     O       03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It makes more sense to call Copernicus Prussian than German, because Prussia had only transiently been held by Germany and not while he was there. Plus there is the nationality/ethnicity issue. 70.15.116.59 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral:

  • But leaning towards Oppose I'm on the balancing point of choosing Oppose or Support, but with eiether choice i make, i would have very weak support for it. I would support this more than other choices if it were not for the sporadic POV editors on Wikipedia that are most of the time also inexpierenced. This does, solve the problem of his nationality in general, and this time gives it a more precise label, and a correct one even, but other POV editors will none-the-less remove either 'German' or 'Polish' from it or obviously change 'German' and 'Polish' around out of immaturity.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Note: Given that literally no modern work of note calls Copernicus a "German astronomer" exclusively, that voting option has been removed, to simplify debate and avoid generating unnecessary controversy. Balcer 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see a consensus here, if any I would be going for the least contested, which I see as European. As I said before the original line, kindly provided by Mr Sidaway was corrupted and the claim was not correct. I still think his line, that was stable for a while, is best, but to add a small section about both nations have recognised him in their currencies. It ties in nicely with nationality section and with Copernicus' role in currency itself.--Alf melmac 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Solution?

As we all known, nationality is an invention of the times after Copernicus. Thus any adjectives - German, Polish - are somewhat misleading. As was discussed previously, Copernicus was loyal to his feudal lord, King of Poland, not to the 'state of Poland'. Assuming that the most acceptable solution - per vote above - is to not use either 'Polish' or 'German', what about using a phrase (or a variant of) either: 'subject to the King of Poland' or preferably 'from Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland'? This should give enough information in lead about his geographical position and feudal allegiance, without implying nationality in the modern sense.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Geographical position? Thorn, Allenstein, Heilsberg, Mehlsack, Frauenburg. Feudal allegiance? Exempt Prince-Bishopric of Ermland, Holy See, Roman Catholic Church. Would anyone open a biography of a modern European scientist, especially when funded by FP6, by writing 'loyal to his feudal lord, President of the European Commission' in the first sentence(s), and if he served military duty, 'subordinate to Supreme Allied Commander Europe'? -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Geographical: Ermeland, subject to crown of Poland. Feudal: subject of king of Poland, as he himself expressed in at least one letter to the king, when he described himself as loyal subject of the king. Szopen 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Solution: just give up on trying to paint Copernicus white and red by squeezing Polish or Poland into the foreground. The political background is only that, background. See also Christopher Columbus, a similar figure, "credited as the first European to", not as Genovese-Italian-Spanish navigator or 'loyal to the Queen regnant of Castile and Leon'. Besides, both Columbus and Copernicus are totally over-hyped for a first which wasn't one, achieved with more funding than most others. Columbus' trip is arguably the biggest failure in history, missing his goal by half a planet. He and his crew were lucky not to have starved to death and be forgotten. Did nothing special after the lucky return "from India", besides dying early enough to become the subject of a legend. Copernicus did not really have a new idea either, but as Columbus, jumped the gun with the quick and dirty Commentariolus. Others had already embraced the heliocentric system, too, and expected him to complete the mathematical elaboration and publish soon. Copernicus had time due to his position in the church, and funds for observatories, both thanks to his uncle. Without the need to finish his five books on "maths for mathematicians" to make a living, he literally had to be pushed and dragged to publish before he dies. If the extend of the vaporware-like procrastination would have been known beforehand, others might have made the effort to sit down and describe the concept on their own - simpler minds would have used his manuscripts and published under their own name. "The book that nobody read", as Gingerich found out when he "happened on a first edition from 1543 richly annotated by a well-known 16th-century astronomer", was not much of a shock to those few who knew about the matter beforehand. They made quick progress, the calendar reform was completed in cooperation with the church, and proper "celestial physics" was developed. Copernicus became posthumously famous mainly due to Kepler's noble dedication Epitome of Copernican Astronomy, the fuss with Galileo, the cunning idea to name his book after the soon-to-be popular concept of "revolutions", and finally the-tug-of war started by those who feel the need to rope in any scientist in their vicinity. -- Matthead discuß!     O       06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Better 'subject to the King of Poland' that than German-Polish or European. In present days somebody as he who had Polish father and mother with some German origin – emigrated freely to or even born in Poland would be consider as Polish citizen. His mother origin is a third order consideration as well as the language which possibly Copernicus preferred. Language preference does not proof the personal sense of citizenship or even nationality anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodz1 (talk • contribs)

Copernicus' German father, a merchant, emigrated from Cracow to Thorn, from Poland's capital to an important city of the Teutonic Order and of the Hanseatic League. Some suggest that growing "anti-Germanism" in Cracow was the reason. Copernicus himself did not bother to move back to Poland even though he would probably have had the monopoly on astronomy there, as Category:Polish astronomers suggests. After Albert Blar of Brudzewo, who did hardly more than study and teach German works, the only Polish astronomer within centuries is Alexius Sylvius Polonus, and that was rather a craftsman working for others abroad than a scientist. Copernicus could have even been the pioneer of Category:Polish astrologers in a time when several Category:German astrologers earned money with that service. As for Category:German astronomers, well, there were many earlier, contemporary and later German astronomers, and Copernicus simply was one of them, born under Polish administration or not.
As for a solution, how about Lukas Podolski and Miro Klose, both born under Communist Polish administration in Silesia some years after border changes? Rather than remain in or getting dragged into something they don't like, their parents moved to Western Germany, and the sons have striven for and made the Germany national football team. -- Matthead discuß!     O       03:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a small note: at least Lukas Podolski consider himself both Polish and German. he speaks Polish and in the interview to Polish TV he said that he didn't sing the German national song during the match because he has "two hearts, in Germany and in Poland". Szopen 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Very poor analogy, and not a serious one at that. Half a millenium separates Copernicus from those two. Did you notice my appeal for raising the bar for this talk page? Balcer 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How could Kopernik's father be German if German national identity wasn't formed till XIX century ? Anyway other sources call him a Pole or a Slav, not to mention facts about his mother. I don't know what sources you used but calling Torun a city of HL rather then Poland is strange-we don't call Saint Diego a city of NAFTA rather then USA after all. As to rest, well I raised my eyebrow at the claims Poles only studied German works and never did anything, but that I think belongs to German nationalism article rather then here.--Molobo 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There certainly was a German national or ethnic identity, but so far as I know anything outside of the Holy Roman Empire was never referred to as part of Germany even if German speech was prevalent. Anyways, there were tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of German-speakers living within the Kingdom of Poland in this time ... did these guys seriously not regard themselves as Polish? This is contrary to my experience with other minority groups in other European kingdoms. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Can you tell us what experience do you have with other minority groups in other contemporary European kingdoms, or more recent European Empires, like the Austrian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire up to WWI? -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Here's a quote for you giving a perspective of the English-speaking minority in 14th century Scotland
they [the Scots] employ two languages, Scottish [Scotica] and German [Theutonica]. The people of German language has the maritime and low areas, that of Scottish language inhabits the upland areas and the islands.
He goes on to say of the first group that they are:
opposed to the English people and language, but also to their own nation, on account of the difference of language.
Point is, there's two language groups and are each a people (gens), but there is one natio; and that the English speakers are happy to regard themselves as Scots, even though they speak Theutonica rather than Scotica. Likewise, Rus'ians living under Lithuanian rule, even if they called their language "Russian" most of the time, also now-and-then referred to their variety as "Lithuanian", and were happy to be thought of as "Lithuanian", even though ethnically they were Rus'ian. My experience is that minorities in the Middle Ages will accept a "nationality" so long as they are not alienated from the mainstream of that Kingdom's life, though may not be accepted themselves if they are prominent and pose a threat. As for the Poles, they were the ones who brought the Germans in to their territory, their royalty were happy to take ethnic-German names like Konrad, Henryk, Ludwik and Zygmunt, and most of the Polish Germans, whether or not they disliked the Polish language and the native culture, were quite happy to "be Poles" and serve the crown's interest without being a fifth column for the Holy Roman Empire (or any of its vassals) or the Teutonic Order. Remember, in the Middle Ages political communities such as Kingdoms, Duchies, Counties, etc, not just ethnicity, shaped identity, and Because the Kingdom was strong and successful in Copernicus' day, there'd be no reason I can see why Polish could not be both an identity and an ethnicity. That said, I am not an opponent here and I don't know much about identities in the Poland of Copernicus' day, hence why I asked the question I did. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Up until XIX century language wasn't the factor that determined nationality. One could consider himself a Pole while speaking Latin or German. Of course a Pole meant mostly citizen of the Polish Kingdom and later Commonwealth, ethnic identity wasn't as relevant as citizenship and sense of belonging to a culture. Thus Kopernik certainly was a Pole-if we apply a concept of citizenship as it existed during his times. Of course we could determine his nationality be "ethnicity" as was being done in XIX century-and IIRC is still done in some countries like Germany where the concept of "blood" takes led over place of birth-but I don't think this would be correct. Joachim Lelewel is considered a Pole despite being German ancestry, Henryk Sienkiewicz is considered a Pole despite having Tatar ancestry. And of course determing Koperniks ethnic group would be hard-first it would be OR, second sources say his father was a Pole although Germanised. --Molobo 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Do Poles "apply a concept of citizenship" for the 19th century? -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevent for the discussion I am afraid as Kopernik was born well before that time, the subject towards XIX century would require detailed explanations which aren't needed here.To put it shortly:the idea of Commonwealth citizenship still existed I think up to January Uprising as Polish actions were coordinated with Lithuanian and Ukrainian activists who were seen as the same cultural group. It was only after the failure of the Uprising that Poles started to use ethnic criteria rather then ideal of citizenship of former Commonwealth as basis for restoration of Poland from occupying powers. --Molobo 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The status of Thorn changed in 1466 - Peace of Toruń (1466). Xx236 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues here that his location of birth is being tied into a claim to fame. Is replacing the location with "modern" going to still be correct claim to fame?--Alf melmac 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My image contribution

{{editprotected}}

Bust of Nicolaus Copernicus at the United Nations headquarters, New York City.
Bust of Nicolaus Copernicus at the United Nations headquarters, New York City.

Please kindly add my/this image contribution with caption to the Nicolaus Copernicus article. Thank you. - Dragonbite 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.Dragonbite 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heliocentric system

It was Aristarchus of Samos who proposed the heliocentric system first, not Copernicus.--Dojarca 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya? Maybe proposed and maybe not - the propose is only mentioned in Archimedes text. Anyway the proposition is without a proof, so? It is interesting that someone has dreams and imaginations but we are talking about science.

Like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which has survived. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times larger than the Earth. Plutarch mentions the 'followers of Aristarchus' in passing, so it is likely that there are other astronomers in the Classical period who also espoused heliocentrism. --Dojarca 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


A matter of semantics

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

I have a quibble with this statement. I assume, since Copernicus was a priest, that the author was referring to Catholic dogma. If so, than this statement is incorrect, becuase their was never any Catholic 'dogma' that said anything contradictory to heliocentrism, rather their was popular belief that was contrary to heliocentrism. Catholic dogma is defined as beliefs that are spoken and/or written from the Chair of Peter, with or without the magisterium, to be infallible. This was never done in any matter concerning science, let alone that of heliocentrism. Even if a pope claimed to be making such an infallible statement, it would in fact NOT be considered dogma since the church only claims to be infallible in areas of faith and morals, an area that leaves science out completely. I recommend that a slight change of wording be made to something to the effect of " Copernicus' work contradicted popular religious belief of the time..." Perhaps someone can offer something a little more eloquent with which to replace the quoted statement. Guldenat 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This page is not protected and longer, so the admin help isn't needed for editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the statement be removed for there is nothing in Copernicus' work that either contradicts religous doctrine, implies the absence of a deity, or promotes atheism. It should either be removed or reworded. Also, without the use of a source for citation this statement reflects the bias of the author. I suggest something along the lines of "The Copernican theory challenged the commonly accepted Aristotelian-Ptolemy model of the universe endorsed by the Catholic Church." GnothiChristos 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


{editprotected}

Yes, that is a much better and more informative rephrasing than I offered. Thank you for your eloquence. ;) Guldenat 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I just did a Google search for that statement, and could not find any kind of original source for it. I say it belongs in the category of biased POV.GnothiChristos 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the heliocentrism was believed to be in contradiction with the Bible itself, for instance, the Bible says in Joshua, chapter 12:
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
It was believed, that when the Bible says that God made the sun and moon stand still, it was blasphemous to state that (in reality) not the sun but the earth was moving. It would mean that the Bible (the word of God) would be wrong at that point.
This point of view reoccurred when Galileo Galileï published his studies. The contradiction was “solved” by not taking every passage of the Bible literally.Jaensky 13:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but from a dogmatic standpoint, the Catholic Church has never stated that the bible should be taken literally, although doing so had been popular (and still is among many denominations) for centuries. However, as I stated above, their was never any Catholic dogma or doctrine that said those particular verses should be taken literally. It was popular to do so, but it was not an official teaching, which is why I, and GnothiChristos for similar reasons, have suggested a subtle change of wording. To clarify what I mean by doctrine, read my first post in this section. That post also already addresses the sentiments you convey. Guldenat 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That can be true. I really don't know all the dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church. But I know that it's a fact that the CC placed the works of Copernicus on the index of 1616, and it's more then just popular religious belief that made them do so. The reason was, as I understand it, that the works of Copernicus did conflict with the "dogmas (?)" of the CC or how do you see that? Jaensky 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"IMHO the heliocentrism was believed to be in contradiction with the Bible itself" your claim of this is based on a scripture taken out of context? We are talking about a model of the universe that was proposed, and widely accepted, nearly a thousand years before Christianity became established. Additionaly heliocentrism is just as wrong as geocentrism. Heliocentrism claims our sun is at the center of the universe; making such a claim without any evidence to support it is quite erroneous.
Also, the discussion is about the statement that "Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma: it could be inferred that there was no need of an entity (God) that granted a soul..." This statement has no source to cite and in the latter half it becomes a POV of the writer who placed it in the article. It should be left up to individuals who have read the works of Copernicus to determine if his works propose that there is no deity. How does challenging a geocentric model with a heliocentric infer "that there was no need of an entity (God) that granted a soul...?" GnothiChristos 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Edit done, with some copyedits. Also added attribution tags. Sandstein 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will see about finding the necessary sources.GnothiChristos 10:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by your remark: “a scripture taken out of context”, maybe you can help me with that?
I agree with you, that the part: "it could be inferred that there was no need of an entity (God) that granted a soul..." is a POV.
The other part however: “that Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma" is correct and supported by the fact, that the CC placed "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" on the index from 1616 till 1758.
In doing so, the CC also Interfered factual in “a matter concerning science”.
Not only the CC, Luther also saw the contradiction with the Bible as can be ‘heard’ in his – not ‘official’ statement but - remark around his dinner table in 1539:
“There was mention of a certain astrologer [Copernicus] who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

Well for one it is pertaining to an event in which it was conditional to the amount of time the sun and moon stood still.
Jos 10:11 And it happened, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the descent of Bethhoron, Jehovah cast down great stones from the heavens on them to Azekah, and they died. The many who died from hailstones were more than the sons of Israel killed with the sword.
Jos 10:12 Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun! Stand still on Gibeon! And, moon, stand still in the valley of Aijalon!
Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? And the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens, and did not hasten to go down about a whole day."
Also, scholars believe the book of Joshua to be written 1000 to 600 BCE, nearly at least 200 years before Aristotle and Aristarchus. Additionaly, the verse is referring to the motion of the sun and the moon in the sky as perceived by observational data. It can also be correct in abstracting the idea of the movement of the sun in reference to the galaxy it is within. For the sun, and solar system, is in motion, revolving around the nucleus of the galaxy.
'...“that Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma" is correct and supported by the fact, that the CC placed "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" on the index from 1616...' The fact that De Revolutionbus was banned does not make it a fact that it contradicted church dogma.GnothiChristos 10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What facts are there to support the removal of the phrase, that: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”? As I see it – I would replace it and add........ “and was placed on the index of 1616” to it. Jaensky 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


If anyone can provide the council name or the exact edict that established Vatican law or Catholic theology in regards to the understanding of the universe accepted at the time then the statement that is being crticized becomes legitimate. Otherwise it is mere speculation to assume that any part of it is correct. And until then I remain firm on my stance that the statement lacks objective content.GnothiChristos 10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Will this do ?:

"Decree of General Congregation of the Index, March 5, 1616

...And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture—of the motion of the Earth, and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego de Zuniga [in his book] on Job, is not being spread abroad and accepted by many—as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615: wherein the said Father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the sun in the centre of the world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium, and Diego de Zuniga, On Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. In witness whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed with the hands and with the seal of the most eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the fifth day of March, 1616.

So my question stays the same: What facts are there to support the removal of the phrase, that: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”? As I see it – I would replace it and add........ “and was placed on the index of 1616” to it.Jaensky 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not pre-established doctrine but merely a decree in response to the publication of Copernicus' book; aditionally that is not Vatican law or relates to "established" Catholic theology. Again, I remain firm on my stance that the statement lacks objective content. "Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma" infers that there was established Church doctrine (established before Copernicus' studies) at the time of the publication for which the book challenges.GnothiChristos 12:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you adding “pre-established” and "estabished before Copernicus'studies" at this point of the discussion. Should there be a doctrine or a dogma stated before a new idea surfaces? That’s not the question here, is it?
Your earlier statement was: “Yes, but from a dogmatic standpoint, the Catholic Church has never stated that the bible should be taken literally, although doing so had been popular (and still is among many denominations) for centuries. However, as I stated above, their was never any Catholic dogma or doctrine that said those particular verses should be taken literally.”
You agreed but…. "there was never a catholic dogma or doctrine that said those particular verses should be taken literally". That seems to be a mistake. I’ve proven you wrong by the before quoted decree.
The catholic church wanted those lines to be taken literally. Normally that should mean that we agree, now that your objection proved to be wrong.
As a final prove, let’s take the words of the pope, in his “Papal condemnation of Galileo on June 22, 1633):.
“Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture”
I think that - without being dogamatic - the pope himself, the chair of Peter, could be seen as speaking: “Vatican law or related to established" Catholic theology” So again:
What facts are there to support the removal of the phrase, that: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”? As I see it – I would replace it and add........ “and was placed on the index of 1616” to it.Jaensky 12:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

'Your earlier statement was: “Yes, but from a dogmatic standpoint, the Catholic Church has never stated that'..."' for one, I never said this; Guldenat did. Pay attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnothiChristos (talk • contribs) 13:06, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You're wright sorry for that.
You're statement was: "If anyone can provide the council name or the exact edict that established Vatican law or Catholic theology in regards to the understanding of the universe accepted at the time then the statement that is being crticized becomes legitimate."
My point thus stays the same Jaensky 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated, whether or not the CC says anything about science, it is not actual Catholic dogma, because as defined in numerous Church councils, the Church only claims to be infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I know that that’s the case nowadays, but as far as I know that was not the case in in the 16th / 17th century. If you think that I’m wrong on this point, can you provide me then sources that prove your point of view? (N.B. The infallibility of the CC is not at dispute imho). As I see it the above (copied and pasted) material shows clearly that the practice of the Holy Chair was otherwise.

Therfore, even IF the church does make a statement, (and not EVERY statement the church makes is some sort of official claim of belief that is a requisite to the deposit of faith)

It may be so, that not every statement is an official claim, but a “Decree of General Congregation of the Index” and a “Papal condemnation” are for sure official claims. If you think that I’m wrong, I’ll invite you to prove that.

if it concerns science, then it is not truly a doctrine, regardless whether the magisterium or the pope himself says it. So yes, from a dogmatic standpoint, the church has never stated it, because if it concerns science, it is not dogma.

As far as I know that restriction wasn’t made in the days we’re talking about. The statement we’re discussing is: “then-accepted religious dogma”. So the point would be: Is there any prove for the restriction mentioned by you, for the period we’re talking about? I’ll invite you to prove so!
But let’s look a bit further: Even if this restriction was made in those days we’ll have to face an other fact. The condemnation of the Holy Chair wasn’t based upon scientific arguments (Someone just being scientifically wrong wouldn’t be of interest for the CC). The real argument for the condemnation is - as the document clearly states - being: “contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture”. The condemnation of a (scientific) work is therefore not grounded on scientific, but on religious matters. The official condemnation of the Holy Chairs says that the heliocentric system is contrary to the true sense of the Holy Scripture, and in this matters (faith) the Holy Chair is competent or as you stated it: infallible.

It does not matter what decree or document you copy and paste here, it remains their IS NO DOGMA concerning science. Benedict the 16 could say ex cathedra tomorrow "Belief in evolution is an offense against God", it would not be doctrine, it would remain the pope's opinion. In the past the pope has used the ignorance of the people and the prestige of his position to posit that certain scientific methods are 'doctrine' in order to preserve the status quo (as we see in the case with Galileo), but this does not change the fact that he is simply unable to make dogma concerning science, and by attempting to do so he makes himself a liar and discredits the church. I'll offer an analogy, albeit an imperfect one. If the President of the United States said at a press conference tomorrow, "From this day forward, the New Jersey state income tax will be raised to 10%." Making such a law or statement is completely out of his purview, even if he would seem to believe that sort of behavior was acceptable.

As I read it you’re looking at a condemnation of the Holy Tribunal as being some kind of personal statement of the pope. That’s surely not the right way to put it. It’s not just something being said “ex cathedra” or on a “press conference”.It’s an official condemnation based on a religious trial, done “by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition”.
And because it isn’t a condemnation on scientific but on religious grounds, one can’t put any reasonable arguments against it, because there isn’t any proof or denial on matters of religious dogma.

Besides, perhaps even more to the point, and I think this is what Gnothi was saying earlier, that Index 1616 isn't even official dogma, it is a decree forbidding that particular work of Copernicus. With all due respect, I think you may be mis understanding the very meaning of the word dogma. In order for something to be considered dogma or doctrine (I've been using the terms interchangably), it must be stated clearly in the doctrine that the text is infallible, and it must be concerning faith and morals. If it claims infallibility and it has to do with science, then the whole text is a farce, and should be ignored even if the pope and magisterium authored it.

That is surely the way of dealing with things nowadays, but as I said earlier and as this and others cases in history show, that’s not the way things were handled, nor was it stated as an official doctrine, in the period were talking about.
If you know otherwise and you can factually prove it, I’ll surely would like to see that. Otherwise we don’t have anything at hand for that period as the practice we can prove, by the documents existing.
Further I’d like to thank you for your explanation of "dogma". I didn’t (and don't) use dogma in the way you understand it but as:
Dogma: is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.
So if (in a given time) it’s not allowed to dispute or doubt at something a religion beliefs in, then that’s a dogma. In that sense the dogma in 1616 would be: “That the heliocentric system is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture” and when you dispute it …. you’ll get sentenced.
The line we’re talking about here, says: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”. You’re arguing about whether the dogma was official or not, but I think that’s not at stake. The question is: Did the CC handle it as a dogma? And as the documents prove … that they did!


You apparently admitted at this point, unless I misunderstood your post, that the decree isn't dogmatic, but relating to Church law and or Catholic theology. If this is true, than you answer your own question on why "Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma..." had to be reworded.

I hope I made my point clear in the earlier paragraph

Also I politely ask you to please refrain from saying you proved me wrong before I even have the chance to offer a rebuttal. Guldenat 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence was meant. I just wanted to be clear in my statements. I'll try to phrase my points a bit Smoother
In order to respond readable and fully to your last post I've placed my reaction in "italic text" between your paragraphsJaensky 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That is surely the way of dealing with things nowadays, but as I said earlier and as this and others cases in history show, that’s not the way things were handled, nor was it stated as an official doctrine, in the period were talking about.

First off, allow me to show you that as early as 325 AD, the Council of Nicea, how the church was very clear when it spoke infallibly. [9] Please take special note of the last sentence in this quote, as it demonstrates the strength of wording when the church declares a dogma.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The idea of the church being infallible regarding faith and morals has been a standard since ancient times. Most importantly, in any ecclesiastical council, when something is stated in a church council for the effect of infallibility ( the one closest to the time period we discuss would be the Council of Trent ), when a statement is made, it is followed by this phrasing, "He who does not believed, let him be anathema" or something to that effect (though this sort of phrasing seems to have been abandoned in Vatican II). This sort of language has always been used, and has always been omitted when something is not being declared infallibly. The whole reason the church has been having ecclesiastical councils for almost 2000 years is precisely to gather the magisterium together in order to declare a document infallible, and in every case it has used just this sort of language or something clear to the effect of having infallibility. In fact, virtually every 'infallible' document declared was done during a church council, with a 'signoff' by the pope or an appointed delegate. With all due respect, for you to say that the decree you posted is some sort of indication as to how the church handled it's teaching, particularly when concerning infallibility, is quite frankly historically inaccurate. Papal infallibility was not even declared until the 19th century, and was hardly if ever practiced before that time. The document you show was not part of a church council, and was concerning a very specific matter that was not discussed with the teaching body of the church. Therefore, unless you can show me strong language in this document, number one, that supports it's being declared infallible, and thus being made a doctrine, and showing that it was issued by an ecclesiastical church council, then it stands that the Church's stance on heliocentrism was not a dogma. Let it be known that the RCC does not lightly or whimsically declared anything to be infallible. As it looks now, the decree you have posted has absolutely none of these qualities.

Either way, you cleverly placed the burden of proof on my shoulders regarding the Church's claim of infallibility in faith and morals and not that of science. If a person were to do any research into church history, they would find numerous examples of the church claiming infallibility in terms of faith and morals,but none in terms of it claiming infallibility in science. It is not for the church to go on listing every area that it is fallible, but simply for it to state what matters it infallible. Yes, you would see the church making statements regarding science, but these statements do not fit the ancient criteria of what would be considered an infallible document. Since I, nor yourself for that matter, have any evidence to support the church has spoken infallibly regarding science, I fail to see why the burden of proof rests on me. If you are making the claim the church has claimed infallibility in scientific matters, it is your job to find documentation on the matter. Until you can do that, I would say the change to the article is fair and should stay. And no, the decree you posted is not proof to your argument, because as I have stated, the document makes no claim of infallibility. That is the kicker, the document HAS to claim infallibility, by making it clear that to believe the doctrine is a requisite to be Catholic. This is done no where in the document you have provided.

As I read it you’re looking at a condemnation of the Holy Tribunal as being some kind of personal statement of the pope. That’s surely not the right way to put it. It’s not just something being said “ex cathedra” or on a “press conference”.It’s an official condemnation based on a religious trial, done “by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition”.
And because it isn’t a condemnation on scientific but on religious grounds, one can’t put any reasonable arguments against it, because there isn’t any proof or denial on matters of religious dogma.

To say that since the church is using scriptural and theological points to refute a scientific matter then the document does not concern science is splitting hairs, and a non sequiter. The very heart of the matter is science, regardless that the author used theology or scripture to refute it. The Church cannot and has not in a dogmatic fashion attempted to refute scientific hypothesis or theory (and clearly, that is what this document is attempting to do), that has been my whole point. And once again, I never simply said this document wasn't official, what I said was that it is not official from a dogmatic standpoint. Also, the Congregation of the Universal Inquisition did not even have the power to issue infallible documentation, and therefore it's participation in the document is irrelevant to our discussion.

You’re arguing about whether the dogma was official or not, but I think that’s not at stake. The question is: Did the CC handle it as a dogma? And as the documents prove … that they did!

This is an encyclopedia article, we do not paint broad strokes to just sort of hit the nail on the head. If it was not a dogma, the article should not say it was a dogma, regardless of how the church handled it. You have fundamentally in the above quoted statement changed the very question which I am the one who posed to begin with. It has everything to do with whether or not it is an official dogma, and it seems to me that you are attempting to steer the course of the discussion away from it's initial and core purpose.

Dogma: is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.
So if (in a given time) it’s not allowed to dispute or doubt at something a religion beliefs in, then that’s a dogma. In that sense the dogma in 1616 would be: “That the heliocentric system is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture” and when you dispute it …. you’ll get sentenced.
The line we’re talking about here, says: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”.

When you say "...and when you dispute it... you'll get sentenced" is conflating the doctrinal and dogmatic end of the church with the managerial church. The church in those days could sentence you to prison on any grounds they wanted simply because of their political power, that does not mean that everytime you were thrown in prison it was the church making some sort of dogmatic statement, it's the church making a political statement. Furthermore, we are talking about Catholic dogma here, and the Catholic definition is what matters in this case, since the Catholic Church and it's stance on heliocentrism is the crux of our discussion, in which case a secular Webster definition is simply not relevant. Either way, that definition supports my point - that document you use as an example does not show to be 'authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted' on a religious level. What I mean is, it does not claim to be infallible, it is simply a decree from the church. If it does not claim infallibility, it is not a dogma.

Visit [10] for a better indication of what is to be infallible. Here is a paragraph in particular.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

It is not clear at all in the decree that the teaching is definitive and meant to be considered infallible. By that very definition alone, it means the decree is not dogma.

The fact is, if that document truly were an attempt to proclaim Catholic Dogma, it would be breaking over 1000 years of Church precedent on how the church has established it in the past, and how it establishes it now. When one looks at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, to the First Vatican Council in the 19th century, you will clearly see the differences that I have mentioned from Index 1616 and a document that is truly meant as infallible teaching.

It is imperative for you to understand the importance of Church Dogma, it is simply the highest level of proclamation the church can make. Once again I reiterate that the document you have shown here shows no quality that it is an attempt to establish this level of credibility and/or importance.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with something being added like, "Copernicanism challenged certain religious beliefs endorsed by the Catholic Church at the time..." or something to that effect. My position is very simple: that the words dogma or doctrine should not be used.

Guldenat 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a source I linked concerning infallibility above explicitly mentions our discussion. I'll paste it here.

"As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained -- which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case." [11]


Guldenat 00:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for your extensive answer.

The biggest part of your answer handles about the infallibility of the CC. For me that subject is not what we’re discussing about here. I have stated that earlier as “N.B. The infallibility of the CC is not at dispute imho”.
There are many dogmas from many religions, that aren’t definitive / infallible.

I can see that you’re keep on bringing this subject in discussion, because - as I understand it - for the CC by definition, something can only be a dogma as it is meant to be definitive / infallible. In your words: “It is not clear at all in the decree that the teaching is definitive and meant to be considered infallible. By that very definition alone, it means the decree is not dogma.”
As I mentioned before, my definition of Dogma is the one that’s used in this encyclopaedia and it can (imho should) be used in wikipedia, for every subject, religion or faith, including the RCC.
We’re talking about an article for wikipedia not for the RCC, so that’s the definition to use. Otherwise we would have to have an other definition for every individual religion or faith, or use the RC – one which would result in the other religions not having dogmas at all, because the RCC wouldn’t have declared it definitive / infallible.

So let’s stick to the definition of this encyclopaedia or feel invited to change the definition of “dogma” in that particular article.

“To say that since the church is using scriptural and theological points to refute a scientific matter then the document does not concern science is splitting hairs, and a non sequiter [i.e. non sequitur].”

I think you misunderstood my point. By condemning the work of Copernicus the church doesn’t “refute a scientific matter”. The CC merely says, that Copernicus' work is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture. And that’s Because the Holy Tribunal takes the Bible literally at that point. In the time of Copernicus and even in the times of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei, there was no scientific proof ( or disproof) of the work, it was just a (good) theory.
At no point there’s something like “a refute of a scientific matter” in the condemnation of the work of Copernicus, it’s just declared “false” because the Bible says otherwise. In other words: “Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma”.
Probably you’ll come up with other arguments from the CC, that say that a dogma is “….”
So in order to save us some time, I’ld suggest the following to be added to the article, which is merely based on the facts, that we know of:

Copernicus' work was put on the Index of the Catholic Church on March 5, 1616, because, his theory: “…is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture” therefore his work among others would “be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively”.

His work would stay on the Index untill 1758. During that period other trials were held against followers of Copernicus. Giordano Bruno, was sentenced for numerous charges and burnt in 1600. Galileo Galilei was found guilty in 1633 for “following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture”, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life in 1638.
Jaensky 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


We have both made our points pretty clear, and I do not believe the two of us are going to come to an agreement. I disagree that you don't think the Church's definition of dogma is relevant here, and I suppose we could begin a whole discussion based on that topic alone, but I'm not sure it would be worth it if it's just the two of us. Personally, I offer this compromise, simply have the original statement that you want back in, but replace the word dogma with belief. From my point of view, that works for everyone, because belief is often used as a synonym for dogma. Since this is simply an article about Copernicus, and not about the religious implications of his work, I feel your insert is a bit to lengthy and in depth, however, I will accept it as long as the word 'dogma' is not reinserted into that portion of the article. If you do not like this idea, I think we should leave this alone for awhile and see, in time, if other people want to weigh in. What do you think?

Guldenat 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your compromise and want to thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it!
I’ve compressed the suggested insert a bit and will place it tomorrow in the paragraph,: Heliocentrism, behind the line: “If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, …. a religious stir. Unless you’ll object to it before that time.

Despite all of that, Copernicus' work was placed on the Index of the Catholic Church in 1616, because, his theory: "…is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture". Therefore his work among others would "be altogether prohibited and condemned,...."[2].
His work stayed on the Index untill 1758.

In that period other trials were held against followers of Copernicus. Giordano Bruno, was sentenced for numerous charges and burnt in 1600. Galileo Galilei was found guilty in 1633 for ,"following the position of Copernicus, which [is] contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture...."[3], and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life in 1638.
Jaensky 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the above mentioned is fine with me. I am happy that we debated as gentlemen and came to what I see as a reasonable compromise. ;) Guldenat 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I do agree to a compromise because we can argue this point for quite a bit of time without reaching a conclusion that satisfies both arguments. My point was that it should be left to the readers of this article and/or De revolutionibus to determine if Copernicus' work was in direct conflict with the church. Wikipedia's policy on articles requires a non point of view, or nonbiased, statements within its articles.
While I acknowledge that the controversy Galileo started resulted in the ban of De revutionibus in 1616, I do not believe that the contents of De revolutionibus contributed to the ban. It was dedicated to Pope Paul III. Copernicus' work was proposed to and approved by Pope Clement VII. I came across a Copernicus article on Stanford's website which stated that Bruno's inquisition and burning had little to do with his outspoken endorsement of Copernican theory. But this is speculation itself, which this article cannot contain.
I have had a thought of what might be considered appropriate as a replacement to the statement we are discussing. How about something along the lines of "Due to Catholic totalitarianism, it was determined that De revolutionibus challenged the church's endorsement of the Ptolemy model, which resulted in De revolutionibus being placed on the Index of 1616, 73 years after publication, prohibiting it from all public venue." I have read somewhere that his work was still allowed in academic circles; so to say it was prohibited everywhere would be misleading.
Well, whatever is provided, we are bound by Wikipedia policy to ensure the article is unbiased in its content. I am sure it can be agreed upon that during the time the authority of the church was placed above that of monarchs; but to say that "Copernicus' work challenged then accepted Catholic dogma" leads me to believe that at the time of publication, there was dogma which explicitly states that the universe revolves around the earth, or more accurately, as stated by Ptolemy's model, a point next to the earth, when in fact the church merely endorsed and supported the Ptolemy-Aristotle model.GnothiChristos 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately the issue of whether or not to use the word 'dogma' has been resolved. As far as, "Due to Catholic totalitarianism, it was determined that De revolutionibus challenged the church's endorsement of the Ptolemy model, which resulted in De revolutionibus being placed on the Index of 1616, 73 years after publication, prohibiting it from all public venue." I say go ahead and make the edit. Guldenat 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I really do not have anything against the current version under the Copernicanism section. If someone has a problem with it, then we should change it. The issue is that the section relates to Copernicanism. While De revolutionibus relates to it, would it be too much of detail, focusing on the controversy of the book, when the article for De revolutionibus provides enough details? I guess Jaensky went over to that discussion. GnothiChristos 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Ive reprotected the page as the edit war has flared up again. Please try to come to a consensus on the talk page. MastCell Talk 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to keep it protected indefinitely, as the edit warring is as old as the article (in fact, centuries older, then on paper), and will continue. Any useful changes can be discussed on talk. Besides, it was semi-proteced against plain vandalism often also. See also Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Same story again, going on for about 200 years. There will never be a consensus. Permanent protection please! -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I could but I won't - it would be inappropriate for me to do so as I have edited the page in response to editors consistently fucking up the claim to fame by trying to insert locality without further thought to the sentence. Pretty sick of saying that now.--Alf melmac 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that edit protection is an overused tool on Wikipedia, and it should never be applied indefinitely, unless MAYBE if you had a professional in the field write a good draft of the article first. The edit warring will be a problem, but I think it would be worth trying some compromise sentences to see if anything can stick. It surely has to be more effective ounce for ounce than arguments here. 70.15.116.59 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aristarchos

I disagree with the first sentence of this article. I don't know whether Mikołaj Kopernik was a Swede or a Slovene, but as the article already notes, Aristarchos of Samos advocated heliocentrism 17 centuries earlier. Is the claim that Aristarchos didn't propose a "real" heliocentric model? Is the claim that Aristarchos wasn't an astronomer? Is the claim that Aristarchos wasn't European? Is this because pre-Christians aren't Europeans, or because Samos is an island? If the latter, was Napoleon European? — Randall Bart (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Or is it because his theory is not explicitly heliocentric? I've made this point previously and suggest the word "modern" be used, as was in Mr Sidaway's adopted but now corrupted sentence, (see above).--Alf melmac 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism

All the founders and chief writers of Protestantism opposed Copernicus. Melanchthon, Luther's friend, called for coercion in the suppression of Copernicanism. Calvin spoke in the same vein as Luther. Writing in Latin, Melanchthon said "coercitur". I should imagine that he mostly hoped that Protestant governments would act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.145.236 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true. Regretably, at the time, it tended to be the case that most all religious believers had what we might today call an absolutist view of their scriptures. I personally believe singling out the Catholic Church in the article for its opposition to Copernicus is somewhat misleading, as several of those who separated from the Roman Catholic Church had the same objections to his thinking.
Also, I find the statement regarding the Index perhaps a little misleading on its own, as it again indicates only Roman Catholic reservations about the subject. Also, as generally is not known, the books on the index were not literally prohibited, it was simply stated (rather forcefully, admittedly) that one should consult with the parish priest or other religious authority before reading them. Similar reservations, particularly about "upsetting" books, like maybe The Gulag Archipelago, and to the ridiculous extreme the Harry Potter books, exist today in many schools.
Maybe the text could be adjusted to say something like "the prevailing religious climate of Europe at the time was such that all proposals like Copernicus', which deviated from the popular conception of the Bible and other works, was such that Copernicus' ideas were attacked and condemned by the majority of the leading Christian figures of his era"? John Carter 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can cite that information (which I'm pretty sure you will have no problem doing) I think it is certainly relevant and fair to to insert that information into the text, preferably right before or right after the mention of the Index. Guldenat 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Galileo now has the citations called for. See ref. 33. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref.33 has now disappeared from the article on Galileo. The Talk page of the same has

still got some vague references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.1.47 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving sources in English literature which say he was German

It's funny how some apply dogma towards Britannica and use it as a base for "Polish" but don't call "Frombork, Poland" the way Britannica did: "Frauenburg, East Prussia". The edit summary used to cram the "arguments" Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana unashamedly and unattractively into the nationality section was "Give the soures in English literature which say he was German". So in recompense for undoing the addition, I'm not questioning why on earth German-language sources would be unacceptable (English sources may also build on bias[12]) but instead post some post-1950 google-book English-language sources describing Copernicus exclusively as German, which some suggested didn't exist: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Sciurinæ 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at these references: the second is a reprint of a 1914 work. The last three call Copernicus a "German ecclesiastic" or "German curate", which may be a red herring - the Catholic church in that area was set up as part of the Teutonic invasion, making it a German church, and its people German ecclesiastics, without them being German. And of course they preached in Latin back then anyway. The names in the Bishopric of Warmia certainly sound a lot less German as you go from the 1400s to the 1500s if that means anything. So what we have left are a book on Chinese magic, a self help book, a couple of very casual references, and one or two glossary terms. These last, especially the East German handbook, are your strongest claim. But I'm inclined to ascribe them to editors copying old references from when Poland had been retroactively removed from the lexicon of nations. 70.15.116.59 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You forgot that Prussia had been Polish province that time :)Presently it is so but we do not call it Prussia any more.
This are the modern and most reliable sources. Do you think the Encyclopedia was edited by ignorants? In opposite this edits are very carefully done.
Not so many. Old and unreliable. Some for sure edited by Germans, some just mistakes. Not convincing.--131.104.219.188 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Try this [23] ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment was not intended to convince anyone that he was German and especially not to start an argument with you, Serafin. And even though you will accuse me, as you accused everyone else, of bad motives, I will speak no more to you. You're a banned user and your ban came much too late. My intention of my previous comment was and is to remind that Encyclopedia Britannica is a double-edged sword that also says that Copernicus died in "Frauenburg, East Prussia" and that, unlike a comment that claimed otherwise and went unchallenged, there are modern (English) sources categorising him as German, too. This has been an illogical argument on this talk page before (no non-German sources say he was German, so his nationality was Polish) and someone even wanted to put it into the article. Furthermore, the source suggesting that bias played the main role as to why "Polish" is now so popular indirectly challenges the Britannica dogma and serves as the counter-balance to those who blindly accuse all German sources as biased. Sciurinæ 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment was not intended to convince anyone that he was German and especially not to start an argument with you, Serafin.

Except Serafin here on the University is a few other Polish people and not only Polish who have very bad experience with German nationalism expressed on Wikipedia.

And even though you will accuse me, as you accused everyone else, of bad motives, I will speak no more to you. You're a banned user and your ban came much too late.

I know history of Serafin ban. You are the second providers after Jadger (or whatever his id is).

My intention of my previous comment was and is to remind that Encyclopedia Britannica is a double-edged sword that also says that Copernicus died in "Frauenburg, East Prussia"

You like or do not like Prussia was in part Polish Kingdom district (Royal Prussia) and in part royal fief (Duchy of Prussia). The statement Copernicus died in "Frauenburg, East Prussia" is right. You thinking is wrong - assumption that Prussia was independent being from ever and ever. The area was originally robber from Baltic tribes (yes, Prussian) by Teutonic swindlers anyway.

and that, unlike a comment that claimed otherwise and went unchallenged, there are modern (English) sources categorising him as German, too.

This is interesting. These mistakes have to be fixed. Any reasonable, objective scholar should make such mistake. Even Copernicus can have some blood relation with German population in Poland he was POLISH astronomer. He lived and was educated in Poland (continued education in Italy not in Germany) he work in Poland and dedicated his work for Polish king. Thus for sure he was NOT German astronomer. He was not even German-Polish astronomer since he was not emigrant or expressed any cultural relation with any German state or Prussia. I already mentioned that this part of Prussian territory was Polish district, and even Duchy of Prussia was not a Germany itself. This was just a temporary being or rather temporary settlement of German elements (I would say the worst, most aggressive) on East of Europe. Thanks the God does not exist anymore.

This has been an illogical argument on this talk page before (no non-German sources say he was German, so his nationality was Polish) and someone even wanted to put it into the article.

Maybe illogical, but good attempt to serve the true.

Furthermore, the source suggesting that bias played the main role as to why "Polish" is now so popular indirectly challenges the Britannica dogma and serves as the counter-balance to those who blindly accuse all German sources as biased.

You know. If somebody belong to a nation with particular, say, historical tendencies should be careful saying this is our nation property or with similar statements. The same in respect to, say, GERMANOPHILES of various colors or just sympathizers talks. Who is not biased from you group should learn potency and the consequences from historical facts. Do not expect all is forgotten on the other site of line and you must be tolerated in regular way.

Best wishes from me --Lodz1 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC) and from Serafin. He smiles :))) , I will not ask him why.

Lodz (a lot of statements above is unsigned, so I assume they were yours): please remember that Copernicus knew German and that he lived in predominantly German-speaking cities. He was Polish, but to deny his ties to Germany is illogical. He was both Polish and German - and most of all, he was "Prussian" - Prussian in the sense of XV century, where "Prussian" didn't meant the same as nowadays.

Let's move all discussion about nationality into separate section. I would say in the lead "famous astronomer" and that's all. No "German", no "Polish", just put a reference to discussion below. Szopen 07:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He knew German of course. In those days German was a significant science language, that is what can't be denied. Every medieval thinker who wanted to be known had to write his works in Latin, German or French. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect

I stayed completely out of this year's debate because I'd already expressed my view last year. I'd just like to say that the current article seems very fair and even-handed with regard to Copernicus's ostensible 'nationality.' If only today's hyper-nationalists would learn to think of themselves as Europeans, as I imagine Copernicus did. Sca 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


The lead

Apologies for adding to the back-and-forth of the lead, but I felt that the version I reverted went beyond the "Polish" issue when it modified the third paragraph (about earlier theories). Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your efforts are most appreciated. It's always the same (banned) user:Serafin, who believes he can reach the same here with this tactic as at Bureaucracy, the argument being persistence. Sciurinæ 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever I am „Wahrheit, Wahrheit über allen, liegt und falsch gehen Sie durch (schwinden Sie), aber Wahrheit bleibt.“ --Buggo1 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus, not a riddle. Well ... you are obviously Andrew [24], written by "Andrew" and searching again for "Andrew" in the link leads to ... "serafin". Sciurinæ 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not a riddle, but to think about ethic. Do you think about morality sometimes? Do not you think that the TRUE is more important than building empty pride?--Buggo1 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heliocentric theories: Reiteration or new?

Did Greek, Indian, and Muslim savants, centuries before Copernicus, formulate a heliocentric theory or did they just try to? At any rate, we should add a source either way. Sciurinæ 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See Aristarchus and Eratosthenes for more information. Both knew the Earth revolved around the Sun, but although Aristarchus' trigonometry made sense his measurements weren't good. Eratosthenes' estimate for the distance to the sun is cited by Eusebius - it can be translated two ways, but one is correct within 1% of the actual distance. 70.15.116.59 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead horse, or Polish/German names in the lead

I am probably beating a dead horse, but why can't we have both German and Polish spellings of the name in the lead? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A Polish language name is a very dead horse on English Wikipedia, indeed. He used many different spellings of his name during his lifetime, but obviously not one coined in a foreign language well after his death. In German, Nicolaus Cop(p)ernicus was/is also in use, BTW. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain your changes

I agree with Saturday. I feel uncomfortable restoring changes that might correct mistakes or make mistakes and presume that so do others. Cleary, the good changes should stay and the bad ones should be swept away. But what is an improvement is not easy to tell if the authors don't give any hints. I know that for some editors that will seem to be a waste of editing time, but they shouldn't be surprised if they look at the article a little while later and their change has been replaced by another edit or reverted because few would defend a change whose correctness is unknown. At least then that change should be elaborated on. I know it's not fair to say who should start. However, right now it would be up to Matthead to convince us of this change. Sciurinæ 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "this change" comprises 3 intermediate edits, the latter two [25] [26] being uncontroversial (or are they?!), while for the first (rv - Please be more specific), I requested comments by Saturday as he reverted 12 changes of mine, some of them being uncontroversial formatting improvements (missing blanks etc.), or edits made and explained earlier [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. After interference of the now blocked 207.range IP, I reverted back to the intermediate good faith edit by an anon [32]. I can understand that it's hard to keep track of all those changes during edit wars, but then it was me who repeatedly had requested (semi-)protection (see above), with underwhelming support from others I have to say. So, please, would someone reinstate the uncontroversial edits of mine (if any)? And explain the rejection of the others? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Could someone please explain to me how Category:People from Pomerania and Category:People from Olsztyn relate to Copernicus? Is it really necessary to include Category:People from Toruń? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)