Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Shame on you 2 German or English Engineer 3 Some principles for the nationality dispute 4 Scholarly views 5 Don't distort dialogue 6 Ethnicity 7 Alternate hypotheses 8 Map of Germany with Thorn, Frauenburg, Allenstein, Heilsberg in Prussia at Nicolaus Copernicus' time 9 Sciurinæ you got an obsession with Serafin, but do not disregard definitions of words. This encyclopaedia not German propagandaedia. 10 First and only warning re: deletion of talk page comments 11 Burgher 12 Dispute resolution 13 Number of principles: 7 or 6? 14 Date of rediscovery of the Commentariolus 15 Unprotected 16 Retrospect II 17 Cracow vs Kraków 18 Dissolution of the nationality section 19 Was Copernicus an astrologer? 20 "Polish-born"? 21 Quotes and Wikiquotes 22 Copernicanism 23 On the meaning of "Kopernik" 24 "Gassendi's" Thill's list of Copernicans and anti-Copernicans 25 Origins subsection 26 Nationality and the Catholic Encyclopedia 27 Reliability of history-world.org 28 Recent Reversions 29 Bogus "citation-neededs" 30 Nationality section 31 Wording 32 Nationality vs. Ethnicity 33 Copernicus was neither by Nationality nor by Ethnicity nor by Citizenship Polish

Shame on you

Every reputable encyclopedia and history identifies Copernicus's nationality as Polish; Wikipedia looks foolish for treating this issue as open to serious scholarly controversy. (By the way, I have no Polish ancestry and no stake in this issue.) Instead of working to bring this article to a standard worthy of its subject—Copernicus deserves a WP:FA, but the article recently and deservedly flunked a WP:GA review—a small fraction of POV pushers edit war over the non-issue of nationality and force the page to be protected, thereby preventing constructive editorial work. When the page is not protected, edit warring over nationality diverts editors from useful work. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Finell (Talk) 09:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't become clear to me who exactly you're criticising and for what. First you claimed that every reputable encyclopedia called him Polish, then you speak of POV pushers and their warring over nationality in the same breath. That there are reputable sources which do even call him (only) "German" or, like should be done, leave out his nationality, can be proven easily. At home I possess the "Duden Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung" (ISBN 3411056231) (Duden Lexicon of General Knowledge), which calls him a "German astronomer", and in a book shop I've checked the "Brockhaus Astronomie" (ISBN 978-3-7653-1231-1) and the "de:GEO Themenlexikon" (2007), both published by Brockhaus and both call him a "German astronomer". The publisher of Die Zeit has also published the "ZEIT-Lexikon" (ISBN 3411175788), also in 20 volumes, calling him "German" as well. Whether Polish or German is disputable, led to disputes and cannot be decided upon (see WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view). You might also like to check the Nationality-section in this article. The conflict is described rather than the most popular point of view being asserted. The person trying to name him a "Polish astronomer" is no other than Serafin (the other one was just an IP undoing all of Matthead's edits, including his undoing of Serafin's edit), whose edit warring until he manages to have his baseless version displayed by Wikipedia can be observed at Bureaucracy. If you want to prevent revert wars, you can clean up at Bureaucracy and help keep his sockpuppets at bay, so they'll die down like in the German wikipedia. The other choice is apathy and an untold number of further edit wars of him over more articles because evidently that activity is worthwhile. As far as a WP:GA review is concerned, I couldn't find anything on the page. Can you provide a link to the WP:GA-review you're talking of, if there actually was one, and its conclusion that the treatment of Copernicus's nationality, and that alone, prevented the article from becoming a good article, if that was actually the conclusion? I'm sorry for you that the state of protection hinders all editing. You can still use {{editprotected}} on this talk page to get an (uncontroversial) edit into the article despite protection, or help sort out the dispute and make a larger edit once the article is unprotected. Sciurinæ 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You only cite partisan German sources. I did not cite equally partisan Polish sources. WP:NPOV does not mean giving partisan claims equal weight with neutral scholarship, just as NPOV does not mean treating the existence of the Holocaust as an unresolved question because there are vocal Holocaust deniers. And you surely don't claim that User:Serafin, whom I don't know and don't care to know, is behind the identification of Copernicus's nationality in Britannica, Americana, Encarta, etc., etc., etc. There is no genuine dispute to "sort out". The Nationality section should be reduced to about 12 lines, perhaps, with appropriate citations to the claims in the German literature, but that should not prevent the lead from identifying Copernicus's nationality in accordance with the weight of neutral scholarship. As for the article failing WP:GA review, look at the box at the top of this Talk page (I did not say that the nationality non-issue was a factor in flunking GA; what I said is that this article on such an important historical figure should be much better than it is, and that energy would be better spent on improvements to the article than edit warring over nationality, which is only an issue in the minds of a tiny partisan minority). And are you really suggesting that page protection, on this or any other page in article space, is a desirable state of affairs? Finell (Talk) 10:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. What has been going on with this article is an unmitigated scandal. Nihil novi 05:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he was neither German nor Polish. Its best to call him European or not to mention his nationality in the first sentence because otherwise this leads to quarrel. His nationality still can be mentioned/discussed at Nicolaus_Copernicus#Nationality. He would have laughed at the idea of nationalities as they are today. Excuse my bad english, i'm normally active on the DE. --Versusray 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not compromise Wikipedia's integrity by giving in to a few determined individuals. That is a bad precedent, and would have disastrous consequences in matters that are far more controversial than Copernicus's nationality. Finell (Talk) 20:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Germany, so naturally the book shops where I live generally offer German sources. Why did you dismiss those four works of most renown German publishing houses as "German partisan"? Do you even know them? I must suppose, then, that you declare all German sources that call Copernicus German "German partisan sources", would you not? Instead of telling me about "neutral" sources, you should first look for a policy ruling out all German sources as biased and then argue that not all sources have biases, that the truth is with the majority and that all else is like holocaust denial. In other words, you'd need to rewrite WP:NOPOV somehow. On the subject of Copernicus, I might as well dismiss all English sources as partisan [1] and cite you as under the spell of a bandwagon effect. It's not about Copernicus's nationality, but about imposing your view on it.

In my previous comment, I asked you who you wanted to criticise. Name and shame, as they say, but where was the name? You gave no answer but you already assumed bad faith about me before (history) rather than provide a relevant reference here. Finally, the question remains on what you found your conclusion that the dispute about nationality prevented everybody willing from constructive work other than just being a distraction. If you haven't based your conclusion on anything but the mere notice "Date of review: 18 September 2007", at least that should be analysed. When was that added and by who? It was added more than a year ago when the GA failed, ironically mainly because of a lack of references. The version then was this one - no nationality was asserted but described in its proper section. This has been the choice for one and a half years now, though sometimes shortly disrupted and of late more rampantly by Serafin. Why I presently don't favour unprotection is because it seems to me you seek to impose your POV. Sciurinæ 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been discussing the content and quality of the article and the manner of its editing. I have no interest in what Sciurinæ calls "Name and shame," nor in blame, nor in personal attacks. I support WP:NPOV as it exists, without change. The Nicolaus Copernicus article requires editing to conform to that foundational policy of Wikipedia and substantial additional editing to improve the article's quality. On Copernicus's nationality and whether there is a substantial dispute about it, I refer particularly to the following from WP:NPOV:

Undue weight

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well....

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

WP:NPOV explicitly recognizes nationalism as a common bias, and that is the problem here. Until the disputants are willing to put aside their edit warring, I must regrettably agree with Sciurinæ that the article should remain protected. I am in the process of doing research on Copernicus's nationality that I hope will provide an acceptable resolution. Also, Sciurinæ is correct that I simply accepted as correct the 18 September 2007 date of the GA review failure that was stated in the box at the top of this Talk page. Does anyone know who vandalized it or when? I just corrected the date. Why didn't Sciurinæ correct the date when he knew that it was wrong? Finell (Talk) 02:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have no interest in scolding, you should pick another headline. "Shame on you" is completely inappropriate, no matter who exactly and how many you're referring to. Speaking to the other person in a dialogue with "you" is also more appropriate than eg "in what Sciurinæ calls". At least, that's what Sciurinæ thinks and he hopes that Finell agrees. Now, you mentioned WP:DUE. You don't need to quote the whole text because I only read it from the page anyway and since I don't throw vast amount of quoted text at you in the beginning or in return, wouldn't it lend your comment undue weight? ;-) Here are some 1950+ Google-book sources calling Copernicus "German" (in English): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

(in German): [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Can you find as many such sources claiming the earth is flat? No? How many can you find? Before I forget, there are also 1950+ google books calling him German-Polish/Polish-German: (in English) [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

or in German: [43] [44] [45]

I think I should also assemble sources calling him "Prussian" but not now. It would be interesting, though. After all, no statement is known in which Copernicus declared to be either Polish or German ([46]). However, he had called himself a Prussian.

You claimed that "Polish" was most often chosen. That disregards the choice of picking no nationality adjective, which I believe is more frequently than any. I guess you will protest that this does not mean that they all found that no nationality could be picked for him and that they simply ignore his nationality for an unrelated reason. In that case, please prove that those who either call him Polish or German do so generally in the knowledge of the positions on his nationality rather than blindly copying an adjective from another source or earlier version, being biased or jumping on the bandwagon. Since that is impossible, you can only look for sources on the nationality dispute and try to represent those fairly. You'll notice that the argument that 'Britannica, America, Encarta etc. etc. etc.' said so has little or (more likely) no appearance in those, which is why I believe that a new sentence about Britannica etc is pretty much original research. I'm not completely averse to the rest of the proposal. The nationality-section could be summarised, the rest of it going fairly into a new article. The arguments for the positions in the nationality-section should be disentangled from the history of the dispute, and the positions in the dispute, in turn, can be disentangled from one another.

Regarding the GA-tag, it was vandalised on February 24, 2007 by some IP. I wasn't there at that time ([47]) and did not know of it before my previous comment. Sciurinæ 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O ya, :))) PRUSSIAN this is what you would like Sciurinæ. However Prussian maenad differently before Teutonic bandits went there and differently at the time of Copernicus live also. Royal Prussia was a region of Poland Kingdom at the Copernicus time and Ducal Prussia was at that moment Polish fief. It happen that the inbreeded Teutonic aggression changed the meaning of Prussia in following periods. Recalling this ill product named Prussia is particularly offending after the series of aggression in history and supporting so strongly Hitler's activity. Admit Sciurinæ you deeply in you soul think about recreation of Prussian “splendor”

I WILL BE APPRECIATED FOR SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE ANALOGY OF ENGLISH/GERMAN QUESTION SO ENERGETICALLY VANDALIZED BY YOUR AND YOU COLLEAGUES FROM GERMANY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you, User:131.104.219.176, whoever you are. Bigoted, race-baiting remarks of the sort you made made by have no place on Wikipedia or in civil discourse anywhere. Although Sciurinæ and I have differences of opinion, seen I have nothing to suggest that he is a Nazi, Nazi apologist, or imperialist. He does exhibit nationalistic pride, which is not evil in itself (although nationalistic pride can have a dark side if carried to excess). Moreover, your offensive remarks are counterproductive: the revulsion they evoke in well-minded and open-minded people negates whatever valid arguments you have, and they are also grounds for you to be blocked or banned if this behavior persists. The English/German argument is a case in point. I thought that the argument was fairly persuasive and restored that section to this Talk page a few days ago (someone else deleted afterward). It will be less persuasive to others now that its author reveals himself or herself as a hate monger. Finell (Talk) 01:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: By admitting that you are User:Buggo1, who is under indefinite block, you admit to block evasion. Most Wikipedians believe in a collaborative community and are revolted by the flouting of the community's rules. While you may be able to evade blocks by switching IP addresses, your bad behavior will cause prejudice against the causes and peoples you support. Please think about that. Finell (Talk) 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you ever think of defending me, don't ever make some "confession" ("He does exhibit nationalistic pride, which is not evil in itself (although nationalistic pride can have a dark side if carried to excess).") because then it is nothing but an unnecessary personal attack in my ears, whatever your intention, the sour core in sweet talk. Insulting Serafin is also a bad idea. That will only lead to a reply of his anyhow and another if you answer again and yet another if you answer again thereafter and so on and on. In short, no answer will be best. It is tempting to answer, but that's what he wants. My previous comment on no account argued that "Prussian" should be chosen as nationality. And if it's true that he has known me for that long, he knows my stance on that very issue ([48] [49]). But it's too obvious that he wants me to answer ([50] and see the shouting above). You yielded to the temptation to appeal to his morality and got an answer in his typical style. You can now choose whether you would like to answer again (and again and so forth) and stay in a vicious circle that deprives you of the responsibility to undo his comments - after all, you wouldn't want to silence someone you are in disagreement with. Have you never wondered why often it's the blocking administrator who never had any involvement in the dispute who gets into fire by the blocked user? My theory is that it means dragging the admin into a dispute and prevent him or her from blocking again (à la the rule "admins should not block users they're in dispute with"). It just so happens that Serafin wanted Matthead, Ckatz and me repeatedly to respond to his German engineer "analogy". Why the three of us? Because he believes we're all German? Versusray is also German. Besides, Ckatz has no involvement in the dispute and isn't even German but still he was pestered for an answer to it ([51] [52] [53]). What we have in common is that we've all removed his comment(s). In his own words: "The section was returned a few times and erased by Matthead, Sciurinæ and Ckatz. They just do not like open discussion and pretend to be always right "policeman"." Later he said, "Obviously I have no reason to like these whose favorite action is provocation and avoiding to face the true (I mean particularly erasing inconvenient sections and questions.) This is not new for the Sciurinæ’s company.". And as bottom line "Please think about all above. The point around is that the company can not shut up us. This is their pain they can not keep lies on Wikipedia." The accusation is that we only remove what should be removed because it contradicted our opinion, an ad hominem argument to legitimate what logically oughtn't be legitimated. The counter-question, more accurate but still inappropriate, would be why those who have a similar view as Serafin on Copernicus's nationality are unwilling to remove what ought to be removed.

The conclusion is that a concerted effort should be made to remove his comments from this talk page regardless of the opinion on Copernicus's nationality, or it would pander to misconduct of his. Those who disagree with him should not fail to do so out of fear of accusations of bad faith, those who take no view should not fail to do so out of fear of being considered partial, and those who discover resemblance with his point of view and theirs should do so out of a sense of morality. There's no compromise to make, at best that Serafin can put his writing on his own talk page and you can put that talk page on your watchlist and draw on his thoughts. The rest should disappear from this talk page or at least be refactored by replacing the thread with a line (in italics) like Removed [LINK thread] probably started by banned User:Serafin ~~~~ with LINK being some link where the full thread can be read; this undermines accusations of silencing, discourages his evasions, increases transparency of what happened on the talk page and fairly prevents people from unnecessary answering to the thread, which would only entail renewed evasions and distraction. Sockpuppets of him can be reported at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. Sciurinæ 19:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing editing behavior on Wikipedia, including possible sources of bias by editors. I am not supporting anyone or attacking anyone. When I referred above to some sources as being neutral, Sciurinæ pointed me to the statement in WP:NPOV#Bias, "All editors and all sources have biases"; WP:NPOV#Bias recognizes that nationalism is a common source of bias. Therefore, Sciurinæ should not construe my statement that nationalism can be a source of bias as a personal attack. Surely Sciurinæ does not consider that he is personally attacking all editors when he points to the statement that all have biases. Bias is normal, not bad faith, so discussing it frankly is not a personal attack. If Sciurinæ still believes that what I said was a personal attack, Sciurinæ can report it at WP:ANI. This wikilawyering really doesn't help anything. Further, in my opinion it is not appropriate to delete another's comments on grounds of sockpuppetry unless the user or IP has been blocked by an admin. While it is perfectly appropriate to report suspected sockpuppetry and others may be inclined to do so, that is not how I choose to spend my time. I did point out in my PS above that User:131.104.219.176 claimed credit for the argument of User:Buggo1, who is under indefinite block, and is therfore admitting to block evasion. I believe I have made myself sufficiently clear on User:131.104.219.176' behavior. Also, NO ONE should feel compelled to answer every rant that one disagrees with; that is just a quagmire and is useless. Let's all please play nicely with others. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

German or English Engineer

Imagine this situation: A family moves from England to Germany, and their daughter marries a German citizen. Her son is born in Germany and educated at the best German university. He also studies in Italy, then returns to Germany. Finally he becomes a great economist, scholar, also a German army engineer. He receives many decorations fighting against a British and American invasion of Germany in 1945. After World War II he works extensively in mathematics research and receives a Nobel prize. Would you call him an English scientist?--Buggo1 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whom exactly are you talking about? Nicolaus Copernicus did not fight in WWII! Cosmo0 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Buggo1 is employing what is called an analogy. Nihil novi 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But did Copernicus' family move to Poland or to the German speaking and German populated Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights? Because if so, then the analogy is kinda weak. Space Cadet 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only known that Copernicus mother was from some family of German name. When she emigrated from a German country or if she was born in Poland is unknown. The father has even less connections with Germany. (On a base of, contemporary to Copernicus' time, church correspondence (i.e. single letter) he was Germanized Slav. :)))) Sounds like happy propaganda finding of Dr. G). This way or other both were Polish subjects and the German roots are glued patches. Actually, I set the option of emigration giving full credit for opponent assumptions. The maximum what they can claim is the mother was born in German Empire and immigrated to Polish Kingdom. So, the analogy is good.--Buggo1 16:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

German or English Engineer? Perhaps a question for a biography of the London-born Mercedes-Benz engineer Rudolf Uhlenhaut, but hardly belonging to the talk page of Copernicus. Picking a World War 2 setting for a dubious OR comparison is pretty close to fulfilling Godwin's Law, too. I suggest to delete this section. Please stop discussing fictional statements - we already are busy with one that was made up much earlier, has found its way into some encyclopedias, and is getting shoved into the lead over and over again. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not play stupid Matthead. The question about German-English engineer is an analogy. There was used different nations name to turn off your jingoism and anty-Polish behavior. Stop you vandalism of true. It is not "Deutschland über alles".

Sciurinæ you are not a prophet to know how Copernicus thought 500 years ago. You pointed to the future impossible prediction, it is the same regarding you personal assumption what should be about Copernicus' nationality. You show lack of culture. You can not point in modern German encyclopedia Copernicus is considered a German, you do not answer to simple question avoiding answer. You also attempt to finish discussion which is uncomfortable for you and continue you historical vandalism. It is not "Deutschland über alles". Return for Poland what is Polish.

--Oddre 02:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some principles for the nationality dispute

1. We're writing in the twenty-first century, so we should maintain a strict distinction between ethnicity, nationality, and spoken language even if earlier sources confounded them.
2. The places where Copernicus was born, lived and was put in his grave are fixed points, around which everything else revolves (pardon the pun). So start by saying that they are in what is now northern Poland on the Vistula River.
3. Nationality doesn't change after death. Even if in 2150 the U.S. is called Transmanchuria, histories should still refer to "Americans" so audiences can understand that the people described were less likely to speak Chinese and were probably less conversant with Marxist-derived principles.
4. Shakespeare would have called the King of Poland simply "Poland", and if you were subject to his crown you were of Polish nationality. I don't see any wiggle room on this one. At the time the Kingdom of Poland was actually unified with Lithuania, at one peak of its power, and was by no means part of Germany. (see History of Poland (1385–1569)) I could more easily accept the idea that he was Lithuanian than German, but customary usage doesn't make British into Northern Irish or vice versa just because they are under one crown.
5. I've seen claims in this discussion that he spoke either language - let's get them sourced and stacked up against one another in a civil way as an academic debate. There should be some hard evidence out there to settle this point, which can then serve as a circumstantial argument only regarding ethnicity.
6. Some fair arguments have been made for German ethnicity, but only by saying that his ancestors, living at other places in Poland, were German. If sourced these can be used anyway, but I'm suspicious. 70.15.116.59 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 4., how about History of Poland (1795–1918) when there was no Poland at all? Accordingly, no Polish nationality at all until 1918. Thus, persons like Marie Curie were of Russian nationality, or Austrian, Prussian or German nationality. Look in Category:Polish Nobel laureates, Menachem Begin is featured there, who was born in Russian Empire, like most of them. Check also the bios in List of Poles. Do you see the problem with double standards? If Copernicus is declared of Polish nationality, based on being born as subject to the king of Poland as his hometown had been transfered from Teutonic Order rule to the newly created Royal Prussia 6 years before his birth, then not a single Pole (as in nationality) was born between 1795 and 1918. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Maria Skłodowska was not a Polish? Are you kidding? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationality: "Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state.". So, when no Polish state, no Polish nationality. She surely had won her Nobel prizes well before 1918. Maybe when she died she had acquired additional Polish citizenship, but her pre-1918 scientist work can not be attributed to Poland or Polish nationality.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, Goethe was not German, since he died before Germany came into existence as a nation-state in 1871. Nihil novi 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic of nationality=citizenship (which I criticize, see above), in strictest sense, he was a Free City of Frankfurtian and Holy Roman Empireian, later German Confederationian. In 1871, he would have been a German Empireian. Of course, he is notable for writing in German language, no matter what citizenship. For example, I am a Federal Republic of Germanyan, while some insist I was born as West Germanyan (I disagree, was FR of G then, too). Copernicus was born as substantially autonomous Royal Prussian, and Kingdom of Polandian. Spend much of his life as exempt Bishopric of Warmian. He is notable for contribution to astronomy, which he had studied in Italy. His main work, written in Latin, was developed while communicating with Germans, it was published by Germans, and distributed by Germans. Copernicus fits into a tradition of German astronomers, Peuerbach, Regiomontanus, Walther, Schöner, Rheticus, Reinhold, Wursteisen, Maestlin, Kepler and others.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, because there were German astronomers, Copernicus was German. Nihil novi 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

but her pre-1918 scientist work can not be attributed to Poland or Polish nationality Eh ?! I think this conversation is out of the logic. I don't think that you know how old Poland is. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Marie Curie was Russian subject but Polish nationality. Although Poland did not existed as a country at her time nobody questioned existence of Polish nation. Copernicus was Polish subject and because his mother and father were Polish subjects also, next he was born in Poland so he would be considered as Polish citizen in modern standards. Nothing support he should be call German astronomer. Take for consideration the worlds are “Polish astronomer” they do not touch the “ethnicity” problem. The fact that he spoke German and many people in his origin area spoke or even preferred to spoke German language do not cancel the fact Copernicus was integral part of Polish culture and science.

There was once an analogy about several languages coexisting in one country. The example is Switzerland where coexists German and French, thus Swiss academic who speaks German is German scientist?

Also assuming that in present days some person born and living all his live in Poland and educated in Poland (+ in Italy) would ask for second citizenship in Germany on the base that his mother was born in Germany – would it make him German scientist? Just logic no national emotions Matthead.

You Matthead. Take for consideration that his origin town was not simple transferred from Teutonic Order to Royal Prussia. Torun actively fought for the transfer. Beside Teutonic Order although dominated by German nights was not exclusively German one. And truly what these bandit organizations have/had with possible German nationality of its subjects.

It is interesting “conclusion” of yours: “when no Polish state, no Polish nationality” This is on the base of Wikipedia statements: “Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state.” , which seems to me some broken English and broken logic any way. Better is the first sentence: “Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty” You can exclude the word "state", still stays: “origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Response - First, as I said, we should not confound nationality and ethnicity. Unfortunately, when we say "Jack is an X scientist", we may mean X as nationality, ethnicity, or in the case of Judaism, even as religion. This ambiguity is not helping things at all! Some other specific issues were raised that also confuse things but aren't relevant here. For example, Goethe could be (in a sense) of German "nationality" even though a united Germany didn't exist, because since there was no unified Germany we know the statement means that he was a citizen of a German principality. History treats the region as a sort of very loose confederation, you might say. That can be argued elsewhere, but he wasn't a subject of some non-German king and so it's irrelevant here. As for Marie Curie, as it says in her article, she was a citizen of Congress Poland, which is described in its article as a "puppet state under a personal union". Now as I said before about Northern Ireland, personal unions don't count, nor does the fact that we might call a state a "puppet" change nationality. A Czechoslovakian in the time of the Cold War was not a Soviet, for example. And finally, the timing of the transfer of land, feelings of Polish identity, etc., are mostly irrelevant - only the technical issue at law is relevant. A baby born to a woman stowed away on a 747 who gets American citizenship by virtue of being in U.S. territory is still described as an "American" by the courts, by the news, and by future biographers - any asterisks have to be added as a qualification afterward. 70.15.116.59 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to this ambiguity, it is harmful to introduce somebody as "X-ish astronomer" or "Y-an scientist" except if that is straightforward and uncontroversial. More complicated cases (Curie etc.) should be explained in a sentence or two, while the case of Copernicus, as subject of two centuries of offline dispute that continues online, deserves a section to cover that. Wikipedia can and should be as accurate as necessary. Sloppiness should be left to Encyclopedias which restrict themselves to the size of paper.

Regarding "personal unions don't count": Royal Prussia was part of a personal union, as it was the protection of King Casimir for their secession which the German-speaking Prussian Confederation sought in 1454, after having been fed up with the uncompromising policy of the Order's Grandmaster as well as that the Emperor, see Thirteen Years' War. Thus it's largely autonomous Royal Prussia, not Polish Prussia, or Voivodeship Prusy or something. In his times, he was called "borussus mathematicus" in Latin, Prussian mathematician. Of course, the centuries to follow gave new meanings to "Prussian". The Royal Prussian cities (e.g. Danzig/Gdansk) defended their rights against later kings of the PLC for over three centuries, the German-speaking population there did not amalgamate with the ethnic Polish society in Poland proper. Copernicus was born with Royal Prussian citizenship - his ethnicity is another issue. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that we should not say "Copernicus was a Polish ...". We should of course try to have a succinct summary, however: "Copernicus was of Polish nationality and German-Polish (???) ethnicity, and was a native speaker of (???)", perhaps. Regarding the status of Royal Prussia I was only going by that very article, which describes it as a "province" that was "incorporated" into Poland. Going by that article, it was subject to the Polish crown, and despite substantial autonomy it was not a separate country answering to the same ruler. Just because they defended their autonomy doesn't mean they had their own king, country, or nationality. You make a good argument and you seem like an expert on this subject, so tell me - is that article or this logic incorrect? 70.15.116.59 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many Wiki articles are incorrect, especially when related to Copernicus, and you got both the timing and extent of the autonomy wrong. The Prussian Confederation had no king or crown, it was an alliance of Hanseatic League cities and local gentry. Disgruntled by the TO policy, they first sought support from German princes, but this was eventually denied by the HR Empire. That left only rulers outside the HRE to hope for - they asked Casimir IV, Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland, for support, with the prerequisite that their rights would be guaranteed. After 13 years, the secession only succeeded in the western part of the Ordensstaat, where Johannes von Baysen, a former Teutonic Knight, became the first governor. The initial Royal Prussian autonomy lasted for over a century: "As a result of the Union of Lublin in 1569, Royal Prussia's autonomy was abolished...". Yet, he was called Prussian even long time after his death and the Lublin Union, see the portraits of him "borussus mathematicus" 1597 AD by Theodor de Bry, "Prussus mathematicus celeberritus", from the middle of 17th century. See also User talk:24.23.39.36. Time to upload to Commons. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly views

Angus Armitage, a British Copernican scholar, writes in The World of Copernicus (New York, The New American Library, 1951, p. 123):[54]

"Torun was founded by Germans; its leading citizens, like those of Cracow, were mostly Germans. Hence the astronomer may well have been of German extraction. The possible connection of the family on both sides with Silesia does not prove much either way for its population was a mixed one. On the other hand, the ancestors, especially on the father's side, must have lived for so many generations under allegiance to the King of Poland as to be, for all practical purposes, Poles. And Copernicus followed the family tradition in siding with the Poles against the Germans in times of crisis. In any case, it was Poland, and Cracow above all, that first nourished the youthful genius of Copernicus." Nihil novi 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Armitage makes fair statements about these cities, while he can only speculate about Copernicus and his family. Have you considered posting that at Talk:Toruń and Talk:Kraków instead? If anyone nurtured Copernicus, it was his uncle and the Catholic Church who sponsored his education with prolonged studies in Italy, and who employed him throughout his life. Besides, this was originally published under the title "Sun, Stand Thou Still" in 1947 and as "The world of Copernicus" in 1951, hardly a time known for well-balanced treatment of Germans and German history, to say the least. See also Western betrayal of Poland. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As only a short quote had been cited above, I'd like to give a longer one from Angus Armitage, the British Copernican scholar, who in 1947 had published "Sun, Stand Thou Still: The Life and Work of Copernicus, the Astronomer", with the title of later editions being shorted to "The World of Copernicus".

"The division of the seamless garment of Christendom into separate nations or sovereign states, which today we accept as a matter of course, was then only beginning. And the idea that people belong to all sorts of different races, with boasts of racial "purity" or "superiority", is something that has come up practically within the memories of people still alive. Hence if the astronomer had been asked concerning his race and nation, he might have replied that he was a loyal son of the Church[55], but otherwise would scarcely have understood the questions. Even for us today it is not an easy question to answer. Torun was founded by Germans; its leading citizens, like those of Cracow, were mostly Germans. Hence the astronomer may well have been of German extraction.[56] The possible connection of the family on both sides with Silesia does not prove much either way for its population was a mixed one. On the other hand, the ancestors, especially on the father's side, must have lived for so many generations under allegiance to the King of Poland as to be, for all practical purposes, Poles. And Copernicus followed the family tradition in siding with the Poles against the Germans in times of crisis. In any case, it was Poland, and Cracow above all, that first nourished the youthful genius of Copernicus. And since his death it is chiefly the Poles who have gloried[57] in their share in him, and have cherished the renown his achievements have brought to their heroic and ill-starred nation."

Added some links to Google books snippets. I wonder, wasn't this quote in the article once? Or at Wikisource? Well, it is now [58]. -- Matthead  Discuß   06:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't distort dialogue

In the Shame on you topic above, an User:131.104.219.176 inserted comments in my 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) post in such a way that one could not tell what I wrote and what 131.104.219.176 wrote, including putting 131.104.219.176's comments immediately before my signature so they appeared to be my comments! Please follow normal Wikipedia conventions in posting comments or replying. If you want to reply in-line to another's specific remarks, please indent your replies at least one level more that the remarks to which you are responding AND sign your remarks (you can use your IP address or a made-up name, since you choose not to reveal your identity). That way, others can follow the dialogue and can see who said what. Thank you.

Because of 131.104.219.176's distortion of my post, I restored my original post intact. 131.104.219.176 is, of course, welcome to restore his or her comments as well, but to do so in such a way that others can tell who said what. Finell (Talk) 09:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:131.104.219.176 is not exactly welcome to restore his comments, he is the opposite, (soon to be) banned from Wikipeda, as a suspected sockpuppet of banned user User:Serafin who continues to reappear here as User:Oddre, User:Buggo1, and under the 131.104.IP range, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin New socks of can be reported at User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. I suggest deleting his comments without further ado. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose you Matthead to discuss honestly and answer to simple question instead biting around the bush and sneaky actions. Just starts face the true.

Answers to you sugestions:

Due to this ambiguity, it is harmful to introduce somebody as "X-ish astronomer" or "Y-an scientist" except if that is straightforward and uncontroversial.

Controversial is only for some Germans. All others know the Copernicus was Polish astronomer. Minor opinion can be interesting can not stop progress.

More complicated cases (Curie etc.) should be explained in a sentence or two, while the case of Copernicus, as subject of two centuries of offline dispute that continues online, deserves a section to cover that.

Nobody with sense of logic discusses the obvious subject. This unfortunate that the Wikipedia can not eliminate the subject of German pretendings.

Wikipedia can and should be as accurate as necessary. Sloppiness should be left to Encyclopedias which restrict themselves to the size of paper.

For sure “European” astronomer is not accurate.

Thus it's largely autonomous Royal Prussia, not Polish Prussia, or Voivodeship Prusy or something. In his times, he was called "borussus mathematicus" in Latin, Prussian mathematician.

Autonomous regions do not create separate citizenship. Secondly calling somebody Saxonian scientist does not change the fact that he is in first place German scientist. Think about it little.

Of course, the centuries to follow gave new meanings to "Prussian". The Royal Prussian cities (e.g. Danzig/Gdansk) defended their rights against later kings of the PLC for over three centuries, the German-speaking population there did not amalgamate with the ethnic Polish society in Poland proper.

And what this above relate to Copernicus? You suggest that because Gdansk defended its independence and the Germans did not amalgamate with Polish Gdansk’s population Copernicus would be identical German nationalist and in conclusion should be consider as German scientist? I would say you go to too much easy conclusions.

Copernicus was born with Royal Prussian citizenship - his ethnicity is another issue.

You created the “citizenship” nobody with a sense of logic would do it. The fact that at some later time existed an independent country called similarly Prussia obviously changes nothing. Do it?

An ethnicity is another matter you are right. I propose to write in first paragraph “Polish astronomer”, next rename the chapter “Nationality” to “Ethnicity” and discuss the uncertain related facts separately there. This is because Copernicus was undoubtedly part of Polish science and culture, but as I say, I agree that ethnicity is different matter than citizenship, association with culture, loyalty and finely even nationality it relates more to family origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.180 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Having in my opinion settled that Copernicus was of Polish nationality (see above), the next question is of ethnicity. It has been pointed out that Royal Prussia was transferred from German to Polish rule only shortly before Copernicus was born, which would seem like a strong claim for German ethnicity. However, I recommend people consult the Teutonic Knights article. Before the twelfth century, Poland was all Polish (unless you count Old Prussians and other Baltics as distinct ethnic groups, though they're not Germans), and I find myself skeptical that even monks could sire so many children as to change the genetic makeup of an entire province in a few hundred years. It seems far more likely that a genetically Polish population was coerced to speak the language of their new rulers. However... as described in ethnicity, ethnicity is not all genetics, but can also be perception; in fact it may be so vaguely defined as to be better done without. A sentiment I'm understanding better all the time. So to settle the question of ethnicity we have to define it and do a great deal of research; for instance, if we could find out somehow that Copernicus had five German and eleven Polish greatgreatgrandparents, would that make him Polish, or would it matter whether social norms at the time put more emphasis on the father's race than the mother's or took religious beliefs into account? And that's not even getting into the question of what "Germans" are and whether Germans from opposite ends of the Holy Roman Empire were any more similar to one another than to "Poles" (a question which could be addressed by population genetics - maybe we can find something on that).

The bottom line: I propose one sentence on ethnicity proper (though more about the debate or perceptions of it can follow). That is: "It is not known whether Copernicus was of German or Polish ethnicity.(ref)(ref)." If you have a reference that actually contradicts that - comes down one way or the other with no weasel words - please relate. 70.15.116.59 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, what are you speculating about? Genetically Polish population? Old Prussia never was Polish. Roman historians knew about Germania and Germanic peoples centuries before "genetically Polish" Slavic peoples surfaced in East Central Europe after the migrations. The Slavs failed to conquer the heathens of Prussia, and that's why the crusading Order was called in. In the Prussian Crusade they built brick castles as a base for settlements. The Knights, rather than "sire children", called in German settlers, which cleared forests, founded cities like Thorn, dried up swamps, created more space to live in. You really have to learn about facts first. Look at Hanseatic League and Ostsiedlung - or whats left of it.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The articles you cite don't seem to support what you're saying. Old Prussia says that the Prussians were a Baltic people with continuous presence in their locality since 2000 BC. Poland is listed as one of the possible homelands for the Slavic peoples from the very beginning. Germania and Germanic peoples describe "Germania" as a Roman-coined word meaning "people related to the Gauls" and used to refer to anyone in the region of Germany and Poland and several other countries, who originated from Sweden moving generally southward rather than eastward. If you look at the map of "Germanic Europe" it is a lot bigger than what we would call "German". The Hanseatic League describes a trading confederation of cities in many countries. In the Ostsiedlung you have your strongest argument, but it describes communities of German and Jewish immigrants in Cracow, not the systematic replacement of the entire Polish population. To the contrary it says that native populations became Germanised. It may be true that some cities, including Thorn, were "founded" and "built" by Germans, but presumably this is in the sense that politicians and businessmen "do" things by paying and commanding them done. 70.15.116.59 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To settle anything, you need to stick to WP:NOR. Even if you have a source that separates nationality and ethnicity, you'll need one on the very subject of Copernicus that argues that a distinction should be made between those two before even being able to bring up ethnicity and even if you can find one, this will need to be stacked up against all those otherwise. Sciurinæ 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's going too far with WP:NOR. You don't have to find a source that gives both density and refractive index to give the two as separate quantities in a chemistry article. It's accepted they're two different things. The same is true for nationality and ethnicity - we know they're not the same thing from everyday speech. We meet Americans of German descent all the time for example. 70.15.116.59 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you this. When Serafin claimed that nationality should not be confused with citizenship - nationality being "family origin, traditions and language" - he defined nationality as what spoke for "Polish" in the case of another person in question, and defined what spoke against that as something else (that person lived in Silesia, then Prussia and later in his life German Empire, so the country or "citizenship" was a bad idea for suggesting exclusive Polish nationality). No one rejected or approved of that. You're not Serafin, but your argument is similar: citizenship was nationality, whereas the family and language are not to be "confounded" or "lumped together" with nationality but count as "ethnicity" or something. Did I say similar? It's actually pretty much the opposite. But what is in common is that nationality is whatever makes the person "Polish". Someone on this talk page believed that Copernicus spoke middle Polish (yes, you know that native language is in the repertoire of those arguing he was German with there being texts written by Copernicus in German and none in Polish), so he declared on the "basis" that "modern historians refer to pre-modern Europeans with appel[l]ations based upon their native languages" he declared him "Polish". So wiggling here, wiggling there, in the end you'll have to accept that family and language are recurring elements in texts dealing with his nationality next to the country, unlike "ethnicity" or whatever will be the next "historical argumentation" here. I know you will tell me that you have the "right" view on nationality, ethnicity or something and so on and on but no, thank you. Please attribute all your historical interpretations and syntheses regarding the separation of Copernicus's nationality, "ethnicity" and language to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses, per policy. Sciurinæ 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair I see that the extensive Wikipedia article on nationality does admit a second definition akin to the one you describe - to me that seems a strange usage. Nonetheless, I don't think that every word in an article has to be dictionary-defined in a specific source. If "nationality" is ambiguous then we should just use some clearer phrase, "subject of the Polish king" or something. (I don't like to use "citizenship" here because it seems anachronistic) Even if the sources I picked did use the word one of two ways it wouldn't make it any clearer to a reader who was thinking the other definition. 70.15.116.59 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the interests of fairness, should we leave out the nationality if it is not considered important?? I want to help sort out this content dispute, and all advice is appreciated. Leave a message on my talk page if you want... I'll try and sort it out! --Solumeiras ^talk 11:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The "content dispute" is over 200 years old, and I doubt you'll find a new way to sort it out, other than reject jingoism in order to focus on his scientific merits. We should leave out claims because for Copernicus, nationality, citizenship and ethnicity can not be stated accurately and in a fair manner by a single word (not even by a single sentence). Yet, some people consider it of top importance to have him declared as one of them, while applying very different standards for 19th century persons. Copernicus was born as Royal Prussian, was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, sided with the local Prussian Confederation cities in a civil war, and cooperated almost exclusively with other German scientists. Is there any evidence that he spoke Old Polish language on a native speaker level, or has written in it? The often mentioned loyalty to the king makes him as much Polish as loyalty of Poles to the NATO makes them Northern Atlantic.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but some of the German commentators from that 200 years were not necessarily editing in good faith. Also: one reason why I don't like the "WP:NOR" idea proposed above to adopting definitions of nationality and ethnicity and whether they're distinct by using historical sources is that it could have an offensive aspect to it. Imagine that we said in an article on Einstein that "his nationality is uncertain, with many sources declaring that because he was Jewish he was not a citizen but merely an unwelcome guest in Germany" (!) Actually, the Einstein article makes use of separate "ethnicity" and "citizenship" categories, which are available for use on this page also, if someone is allowed to edit it. 70.15.116.59 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate hypotheses

In the interest of fairness, let us consider all the hypotheses that could be put on the table. For rhetorical reasons I'll temporarily lump nationality/ethnicity/language together.

• Copernicus was Dutch (or Belgian). The Ostsiedlung involved many Dutch settlers coming to Prussia, and the Netherlands hosted many cities of the Hanseatic League.
• Copernicus was Swedish. The Germanic peoples who displaced some Slavs from northern Poland a millennium and a half before his birth came from Sweden, and Sweden was important in the Hanseatic League too.
• Copernicus was Danish. Or English. (Hanseatic League trading partners, just for good measure)
• Copernicus was Lithuanian. The King of Poland was the King of Lithuania, so he was a subject of the King of Lithuania.
• Copernicus was Roman. As an ecclesiastic he was actually (I think) a subject of the temporal authority of the Roman Catholic Church, he spoke Latin, studied in Italy, lectured in Rome.
• Copernicus was German. Many settlers in the Ostsiedlung came from Germany and Germany was one of the countries in the Hanseatic League, and it is true that the Duke of Prussia came from the Teutonic Order established by German conquest.

• Copernicus was Prussian. You could say that Copernicus was Royal Prussian, but that's just a province under the Polish king. But where ethnicity is concerned we can speak of Old Prussia and its East Baltic inhabitants. They are distinct from the West Baltic, i.e. Lithuania, the Poles to the south of them, the Germanic tribes to the west of them, but similar to all three. There is a serious argument to be made that the Prussian ethnicity continued in that time, since the church of Copernicus gave instruction in Old Prussian (an extinct East Baltic language), and it has been argued that Prussian traditions somehow affected his interest in astronomy.[59] Prussia was substantially affected by Germanization and Polonization, but they were the original inhabitants. The question for this one is simple enough: Are Poles Poles? By which I mean, in order to be of Polish ethnicity, must you be an ethnic Pole? Or is Poland allowed to pull in the various Eastern and Western Baltic populations from within its national geographical extent, much as "German" ethnicity pulls in Alemanns, Franconians, Saxons, and Franks? Do you say in an article about a German, no, he's not a German but a Frank?
• Copernicus was Polish. Copernicus was born in Poland, lived in Poland, was buried in Poland. If you look at a map of Europe at the time when he lived and you want to find him, you look for the Vistula River in the middle of Poland. He was a subject and advisor of the Polish king, and arranged the successful defense of Olsztyn Castle from an insurrection of the Teutonic Order[60] leading to the Prussian Homage that reestablished the subordination of the Prussian (Teutonic) duke to the Polish king. If you would call him something other than Polish, well... take your pick. 70.15.116.59 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there is a consensus that the information about NC should be as accurate as possible, regardless of nationalist feelings. Further I think it would be helpful when we at first come to a consensus what the adjective before Nicolaus Copernicus should describe (and to have the same basic information about facts).

What should the adjective(s) describe?

1. Political status of the territory he lived in? - autonomous entity, protectorate of/personal union with: Kingdom of Poland; not very relevant, as Kurds or Sorbs prove
2. Allegiance? - Catholic Church, Polish Crown, Prussian Confederation
3. Origin of parents? - Polish, German
4. Culture of upbringing? - Roman Catholic, Prussia, wealthy patricians
5. Native language? - German (published books in Latin and German, but not in Polish)
6. Name of the landscape he was born/was raised/lived in most of the time? - Prussia (please please not to be confused with the infamous warloving oppressive Kingdom of that name in later times, the landscape is meant here. Mexico is not Spain, Prussia is not Germany)
7. Own statements about this? - Called himself a Prussian and Prussia his native country [61]

I think it is also helpful to look at similar examples and use similar descriptions in Wikipedia articles, e.g.

• Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, where the article avoids the questions of ethnicity, nationality or citizenship and just states the facts. He lived at the same time like NC.
• If one wants an example from a later time, what about Nikola Tesla. The article states "Born in Smiljan, Croatian Krajina, Military Frontier, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen. (ref)An example of Tesla's views regarding his ethnic origin is the quote "I'm equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian homeland.""
• To say that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer is like saying that Sean Connery is an English actor. Although I do not really care, it is nevertheless not quite factually correct. British would be correct, but Scottish more to the point. If it were factually true I would have no problem with saying "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer". One could say he was loyal to the Polish King, but that is a different thing.

Undisputedly Marie Curie was a Polish scientist and Frédéric Chopin a Polish composer. This is undisputed because these two were not only born in Poland, but more importantly had a Polish upbringing and confessed to be Polish.

What was NCs upbringing and what did he say he is from? The evidence tends to the adjective Prussian[62] if one wants to use an adjective at all. Of course "Prussian" does here not mean the infamous expansionist authoritarian later Kingdom of Prussia, but is meant in the sense of "the culture of the population which happened to live between Vistula and Neman River at the time when Copernicus lived there as well". Der Eberswalder (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Map of Germany with Thorn, Frauenburg, Allenstein, Heilsberg in Prussia at Nicolaus Copernicus' time

There is a lot of odd discussion by confused editor in the previous entries. #70.15. posted some thing, he calls a map of Germany. Here is a real Map of Germany and Prussia with Thorn, Frauenburg, Allenstein, Heilsberg, all places where Nicolaus Copernicus worked and died in Prussia. He was known as Prussian Mathematician and church Canon of the prince-bishopric of Warmia in Prussia. The map also shows Breslau in Holy Roman Empire of Germany, where Copernicus held a long-time position at Holy Cross church. He received a Diploma of Canon Law in Italy as Nicolaus Copernich de Prusia Many portraits are painted of him with the description as Borussus Mathematicus - Prussian Mathematician and similar. What's more he referred to himself and to his homeland as Prussian and Prussia, in writing. No one was confused about him until about 100-150 years ago claims started to creep up, calling Copernicus Polish. Poland is located south of Prussia, clearly defined by green border on the map from Copernicus's time.

1. "Royal Prussa" WAS POLAND in the XVI century - when Copernius lived and in XVII century too... in fact it remained POLISH till 1764.

2. Warmia - was always Catholic and it was settled by POLISH peasants. Warmia never belonged to Ducal Prussia

3. Ducal Prussia got independecne from POLAND in 100 years after Copernicus died.

4. Copernicus fought theTeutonic Knights. He was always loyal to his home-country - POLAND'

I believe no one is authorized to retroactively strip Copernicus of his Prussian citizenship or nationality

Prussia was not a separate nation by then.

or family or anything, by calling his country Poland or calling him Polish 500 years later. (I might add "Keep your cotton-picking hand off him", but I don't). 

I assume that by "family" you also mean his Polish father - with a Polish surname whose family came to Torun in XIV century from a Polish village "Koperniki" in Polish Silesia, and ruled by the Polish "Piast" Dynasty???

Have a nice day 11 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.9.218 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• According to the description of the atlas from which your map is taken, it was first published in 1635, more than 150 years after Copernicus was born.
• The map does not place Thorn in Prussia as you have claimed, but in Poland. The location of Thorn is about 50km south-east of Bydgoszcz (Bidgostia on your map), approximately where a town named "Torrit" appears on the map.

It may well be true, for all I know, that at the time when Copernicus was born Thorn did lie within the then borders of Prussia, but your map provides no evidence for that. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead to the Germania map (with Torrn and a stain), 75.1.* above may have intended to link to two other, more detailed and focussed maps from the same Blaeu Atlas Maior, but from the Northern and Eastern Europe section which is hosted by UCLA and, conveniently, by Wikimedia Commons.

There, Polonia shows his birthplace Thorn, in 1645 politically part of Polonia Regnum, as the autonomous Royal Prussia of Copernicus' lifetime had been "annexed" in 1569. Note that the places he lived and worked in, Frawenburg, Heilsperg, Allenstein, are outside of Poland, in Brandenburg-Prussia.

Varmien in Latin (i.e Warmia in Polish) was a part of Royal Prussia (if not separate region at all) at Copernicus time, and you Matthead know it perfectly. You vandalized the article Royal Prussia and the map is there [[63]] Do not falsify history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Prvssia shows the whole of Prussia as a cultural region, with dotted political borders, including Thorn in the Culmerland region marked Culmigeria / Colarisch Land, and the bishopric Ermeland/Varmia, with said Frauenburg, Heilsberg, Allenstein. Polish names for these places, as used today (and in the current protected version of the article), were unknown at the time to non-Poles. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some context on the later status of this area can be taken from the article on Frederick II of Prussia, in which one of Catherine's people suggests he make a claim on Warmia that eventually leads to the first partition of Poland. He is described as being contemptuous of his Polish subjects. The article on Warmia suggests that even in the twentieth century, "Warmiaks" (yet another option for ethnicity?) were subject to oppression as Poles. However, that article also maps Warmia far east of Thorn and the Vistula, so apparently we have some homework to do here.

As for names, does the use of "Tornaus borussus" mean the province was inhabited by Romans? Everyone used their own minor variant to fit their language. As for EB1911, don't forget that in 1911 Poland was partitioned and probably viewed as a defunct regional unit. 70.15.116.59 10:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Frederick's judgment "Poland had the worst government in Europe" is pretty up-to-date, the quality of current Polish leadership is not held in high esteem either, according to recent remarks by EU politicians. Homework should be done by you, as you seem to believe that Thorn was in Warmia/Ermland, which is not the case, they are rather far apart, Thorn-Frauenburg about 200km according to Google maps (yes, Google knows the German names, they are not forgotten). Copernicus was born in Thorn, and spent most of his life in the autonomous bishopric of Ermeland, which, like Thorn, is situated within the region of Prussia. Thus he was a "Borussus Torinenis", a Prussian from Thorn, in the language of the Romans, which Copernicus used, as a member of the Ecclesia Catholica Romana, and as a scholar. Apart from that, in local politics, like his treatise on money, he used German (Muncze wyrdt genennet ..., see Talk:Copernicus as Ermland Administrator and the Prussian Coin Reform). And in 1911, the British (and others) had already started to fight against the growing economical, military and cultural might of the German Empire, like requiring the Made in Germany label in the 1887s, which backfired. One of the tactics was fostering Polish nationalism, and erecting an oversized Polish state after WWI, making sure that conflicts will arise from that, e.g. by the Polish corridor. See what H. G. Wells had to say about that. Anyway, EB1911 does not know a Polish name for German towns Frauenburg Heilsberg Allenstein. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

Frederick's judgment "Poland had the worst government in Europe" is pretty up-to-date, the quality of current Polish leadership is not held in high esteem either, according to recent remarks by EU politicians.

Nobody vandal is interested in yours of small Fridericus opinion about Polish government.

Thorn-Frauenburg about 200km according to Google maps (yes, Google knows the German names, they are not forgotten).

German names are for Germans. The minorities and disable need some help.

Copernicus was born in Thorn, and spent most of his life in the autonomous bishopric of Ermeland, which, like Thorn, is situated within the region of Prussia.

Royal Prussia which was an integral part of Polish Kingdom. He had nothing to do with royal fief (Duchy of Prussia).

Thus he was a "Borussus Torinenis", a Prussian from Thorn, in the language of the Romans,

To be exact "Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus" which means from Torun in Prussia (a region not a state :))) as you obstinately attempt to suggest.

Apart from that, in local politics, like his treatise on money, he used German (Muncze wyrdt genennet ..., see Talk:Copernicus as Ermland Administrator and the Prussian Coin Reform).

Yes, for the German subjects of Polish Kingdom, who did not understood the official language (Latin) used in their state of setlement.

And in 1911, the British (and others) had already started to fight against the growing economical, military and cultural might of the German Empire,

You mean against traditional Teutonic imperialism in East Europe. Well finally it had been finalized after WWII.

One of the tactics was fostering Polish nationalism, and erecting an oversized Polish state after WWI,

That is only you seek imagination. Prussia after WW I did not returned all Polish land which was sized.

making sure that conflicts will arise from that, e.g. by the Polish corridor.

So you say Adolfus (the small) had full right to aggression and the WW II was nobody fault but British and of course the Polish pigs. Right? :)))

See what H. G. Wells had to say about that.

That right the Polish Corridor should not be created. That was made big mistake. The Prussia should be liquidated at that time.

After you notes above finally we know who you are. This is unfortunate accident that such revisionist and aggressive minds can display his view here on Wikipedia. The advantage is that the public can see the sickness still exists and need to be cure.--Guzikk 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. The yours Fridericus the Small the primitive had been talking about Polish government which created the first European Constitution (3 May 1791) just little bit before the first world constitution at USA war of independency was written (1789 I believe). There at the war a significant participation had army Polish officers educated in the “spoiled state” according to yours hero Fridericus the Primitive. Little bit later the French constitution was following, and those are the most significant points at the start of modern democracy, which you personally enjoy. In opposite the Prussia and Prussian descendants proofed to be most aggressive and criminal element of Europe – the WW I and WW II the most major example but not exceptional. The Fridericus the Smallest mind state was most notorious aggressive intolerant totalitarianism in XiX century and the ideological roots of Hitlerism. But you ethics is “if somebody steal a cow from yours farm is bad criminal if you steal somebody cow it is good business”. Enjoy thinking id you can think.--Guzikk 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

______________________________

"were unknown at the time to non-Poles" Source ?--Molobo 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you showing evidence that Non-Poles knew or used Polish names before, lets say, 1800? Or 1900? Or 1918? 1945? For example EB1911[64] uses Thorn, Frauenburg, Ermeland, Cracow, Heilsberg. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Moreover the Prussian territory at Copernicus time belonged to Polish Kingdom. Royal Prussia where come from Copernicus originated belonged directly to Polish King the Duchy of Prussia was fief of Poland. Prussian was originally Balts tribes (having nothing to with German origin) ad this people were brutally exterminated by Teutonic Knights. Prussian citizenship or state did not exist for next hundred years or more. In Copernicus time Prussian related to a region of Poland.

Now Poland “IS” not located south of Prussia. Prussia DOES NOT exist anymore; simple because Prussians were exterminated by Teutonic brutals of that time, and the temporary German settlement on East called Prussia was liquidated after the WW II. For remain WW II was started by more modern Teutonic brutals, if somebody would like to forgot it.

I believe no one is authorized to put history upside down. "Keep your cotton-picking hand off him" as you said. If you will cleanup you invasive mind, maybe you will “have good day” 75.1.9.218. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the nationality of Copernicus is Polish rather than Prussian, because of reasons stated by me and above, but the case shouldn't be overstated. As I said, Copernicus worked at a church that taught in Old Prussian - clearly the Prussians weren't "exterminated" completely. Prussia had existed before as a separate nation, and as pointed out, did exist again as a separate nation afterward. The fact that the Teutonic Order was trying to invade a castle Copernicus had designed the defenses for was probably fairly good indication that in some sense Prussia (or some leaders thereof) even tried (briefly) to assert itself as a separate nation (under German-ish rule) while Copernicus was alive. But the bottom line is still that they lost and remained subordinate to Poland at the time when Copernicus was alive. And if we accepted the idea that nationality can be redefined after death, then he'd still be Polish. As for "Borussus Mathematicus", remember that the full legend for these pictures is always "Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus". So he is always being called a Torunish Prussian mathematician, but neither Torun nor Prussia is necessarily his nationality. 70.15.116.59 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I never heard about survivors of Prussian tribes, who additionally fought for independents after over 300 years of the rule of Teutonic Order, but let me know the source of the info. Regarding: "Prussia had existed before as a separate nation, and as pointed out, ..." I have doubts if possible losse unions of Prussian tribes in XII century can be named nation if so they would be Balts like Lithuanians or Latvians - they of course were not Germans in any kind. Regarding: second part: "...did exist again as a separate nation afterward" you mean the Lutheran -German state I suppose. However those two populations were not a in continuation of each other, it was different language, different religion and the cultural continuation as well ethnicity was weak since lack of written language plus total intolerance for original Prussian in the Teutonic state.

Regarding "Tornaus Borussus Mathematicus" I fully agree. Nor Prussian nor Torunian citizenship existed in the sense of present day. Prussa was a region Torun was a city. Although at that time existed something like city citizenship with the meaning of member of a city elite or free population. The cities elites were free people very often in direct relation with sovereign like Polish King. This is why they proudly called themselves citizens - in this case from specific city. This of course is wrongly interpreted of individuals who want put the "roots" of German state in place and time where they should not be implanted. This is very peculiar how a people born in different place, descendants of aggressors, whose ancestor survived only because were not treated as they treated other nation, at present day attempt to return. Attempt and pretend to be approved owners of lands fertilized by blood of other nations murdered so brutally by their ancestors.--131.104.219.176 00:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither existed Polish citizenship in the sense of present day. In the feudal system the people were subjects of local nobility who in turn were subjects of a bigger king or the Holy Roman Emperor. The local nobility or independent cities were practically their own rulers. That's why it is incorrect to state that Copernicus was in any way Polish, he was just loyal to the Polish king like he was loyal to the Pope (and maybe also to the Holy Roman Emperor). Der Eberswalder (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sciurinæ you got an obsession with Serafin, but do not disregard definitions of words. This encyclopaedia not German propagandaedia.

Let me tell you this. When Serafin claimed that nationality should not be confused with citizenship - nationality being "family origin, traditions and language" - he defined nationality as what spoke for "Polish" in the case of another person in question, and defined what spoke against that as something else (that person lived in Silesia, then Prussia and later in his life German Empire, so the country or "citizenship" was a bad idea for suggesting exclusive Polish nationality).

It seems to me Sciurinæ you got an obsession with Serafin. I will ask him to say to you hello time to time. Here is the Wikipedia definition: Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. (Please do not say that Serafin created this.) While the definition is not a perfect one its contain elements what compose the sense of nationality. As you see its differ from:: Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. Nationality has nothing to do with citizenship.

In the case of Copernicus not only state of origin is Poland but he is associated with Polish culture and education system. Moreover showed full loyalty to Polish king and state.

In the case of Dzierzon, he was in conflict with Prussia king and state. He was fully conscious of his family origin and it was decisive fact for his association with Polish culture.

No one rejected or approved of that. You're not Serafin, but your argument is similar: citizenship was nationality, whereas the family and language are not to be "confounded" or "lumped together" with nationality but count as "ethnicity" or something.

In the case of Copernicus the “citizenship” (it good to say loyal subject of Polish King) was simply the same as nationality i.e. Polish. Born in Poland and loyal to this country. In Dzierzon case born in Prussia and rejecting the state which occupied his native land.

He is an Wikipedia definition: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry[1] or recognition by others as a distinct group,[2] or by common cultural, linguistic, religious, or physical traits.

In fact while the Copernicu’s “citizenship” and sense of nationality is not questionable the ethnicity can be discussed. His father was as you would like “to be probably Germanized Slave” but take for consideration the worlds “probably Germanized”. Even if the world probably relates to world “Slave” also (whish is very questionable – his father was Slave) the father’s was subject of Polish King thus in modern meaning Polish citizen.

Also his mother was Polish King subject. We do not know if she was born as such and probably her family was German origin from her father side (the name suggests that), but this is only what you can say. This is to little to claim he was “German astronomer”. Copernicus just had some ethnic relation with German speaking population of Poland. This is why only ethnicity can be discussed.

Did I say similar? It's actually pretty much the opposite.

What is opposite? Nationality to ethnicity, it can be. As well as ethnicity can be in opposite to citizenship, and citizenship with nationality.

But what is in common is that nationality is whatever makes the person "Polish". Someone on this talk page believed that Copernicus spoke middle Polish (yes, you know that native language is in the repertoire of those arguing he was German with there being texts written by Copernicus in German and none in Polish).

In Poland in this time the Latin language was the official one. The Polish language was written in poetry only. Because large numbers of German cities citizens the German was used in communication there. This is why somebody could say Copernicus father was Germanized. He for sure spoke German.

so he declared on the "basis" that "modern historians refer to pre-modern Europeans with appel[l]ations based upon their native languages" he declared him "Polish".

He did not declared Dzierzon Polish. Dzierzon was ethnic Polish, belonged to Polish nation since his own declaration. He was Prussian citizen only. Prussia does not exist anymore and was only a part of Germany at some days any way. Now the former Prussian territories belong to correct owner again thus what the point to recall a citizenship of such kind.

So wiggling here, wiggling there, in the end you'll have to accept that family and language are recurring elements in texts dealing with his nationality next to the country, unlike "ethnicity" or whatever will be the next "historical argumentation" here.

On the beginning it was simple and correct. Jan Dzierzon was Pole, but because you wanted to add Prussian citizenship, Serafin says the “wiggling” of yours aggressiveness was necessary.

I know you will tell me that you have the "right" view on nationality, ethnicity or something and so on and on but no, thank you.

Of course “something and so on and on” is uncomfortable. Nationality, ethnicity and citizenship is OK if serves Sciurinæ’s purposes if not: “no, thank you”

Please attribute all your historical interpretations and syntheses regarding the separation of Copernicus's nationality, "ethnicity" and language to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses, per policy.

You sound like a professor. You give homework, but where is you knowledge, yours points and arguments. Anyway, you disregard definitions and logic thus the “homework” has no sense. Start answer to simple questions that will begin constructive conversation in other way you will bee still provocateur and war maker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppets of blocked User:Serafin often cause a mess here, see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin for a list with about 40 accounts. As suggested above, it is better to remove his "contributions" at sight, rather than answer to him. Do not feed the Troll! -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not mean you have a right to erase texts on discussion page. You obviously have no arguments but unnecessary there is no point in this notes. Clearly you do not like some true but it does not mean you can kick them under rug. --Koral2 06:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First and only warning re: deletion of talk page comments

The history of this page shows that certain individuals have been deleting on-topic comments made by others. Don't. This is uncivil, unconstructive, and violates Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. The next person(s) to do this will receive blocks. Repeated occurrences by the same individual will lead to longer blocks. Raymond Arritt 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See ANI: Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The text in question originated with sockpuppets of a banned user. Isn't policy to remove them, rather than allowing the user to continue to disrupt Wikipedia? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No. That is not your job, nor your right. Report suspected sockpuppetry or other policy violations to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. I do not intend to argue this point further. Finell (Talk) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Finell, this is not "vigilante"-style action. There is a long and well-documented history of abuses of this page by IPs in the same range as the one in question, the IP is question has already been reported as a sockpuppet and blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts", the removals were primarily removed by proven sockpuppets of Serafin, and so on. Ranting about "anarchy" is really only an attempt to deflect attention from the real subject, that being whether or not the material should stay under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally approve of the deletions, but how can you block someone for violating guidelines "not set in stone"? Especially those guidelines, which are full of loopholes (see my comment at the ANI thread). 70.15.116.59 16:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Burgher

As to the sentence "Copernicus remained for the rest of his life a burgher of Warmia (Bishopric of Warmia)", the reference to "burgher" directs to a disambiguation page. From the discussion on this talk page, it is not clear to me whether "burgher" refers to being a member of a community's upper class, or merely to citizenship. I suggest that this be made more clear, and then that the reference be changed as well. It may also be the case that editing, or an additional entry on, the "Burgher" disambiguation page, needs to be made. Typofixer76 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Can anyone answer the following questions:

• What has caused the article to be protected until disputes have been resolved??
• Who are the main participants in the dispute??
• How can we resolve this peacefully??

Also, I have a suggestion - we could take this to a request for mediation if there is consensus.

Regarding the nationality dispute, that could be spun off into a separate article - and this one should be about him and his work, not his nationality status as that is an entirely different issue - and it warrants a separate article.

I'm still reading through this talk page, but I hope I can be of some help. --Solumeiras ^talk 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you wanted to link to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, not to move. The recent ANI:Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus should be helpful to get an idea how a single sockpuppeteer (and his sockpuppets), plus disinterested admins, could add up to be straws that broke not only the back of this article, but also that of its talk page. Frankly, the best would be to permanently full protect article and talk page, and file the whole thing under F for failure.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I did want to link to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I had a read through the archive about Serafin, and I now know what to look out for. Sadly, Wikipedia:Protection policy does not allow for permanent full-protection of mainspace articles like this. However, it would be a good idea to get this to WP:GA status if we could. I'm not going to remain uninterested in the dispute, I want to try and sort it out. --Solumeiras ^talk 10:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is hopeless in this particular case because the disputants, in good faith, cannot accept a position contrary to their own on Copernicus's nationality. The dispute over whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German has raged on Wikipedia—although not in the generally accepted scholarship on the subject—since last year at least. It is documented on this Talk page and this page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives.Finell (Talk) 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOVE IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE "IMMENSELY IMPORTANT" ISSUE OF COPERNICUS' NATIONALITY. Unbelievable! All that time & brains & energy utterly wasted on such nonsense! --AVM (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like it then why do you sacrifice your "time & brains & energy" to make comments that don't even belong here? Of course you're entitled to have your own opinion, but if the discussion is such "nonsense" to you, then why don't you just ignore the whole thing and go on your way? Space Cadet (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of principles: 7 or 6?

The article says Copernicus's system is based on 7 principles but only 6 are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.159 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the 6 items listed by the article as the "major parts of Copernican theory" are not intended to be a a strict enumeration of the "seven propositions" which Copernicus laid out in his Commentariolus. At any rate the 6 items differ substantially from the versions of Copernicus's 7 propositions given by C.M. Linton on p.123 of From Eudoxus to Einstein (though there are also substantial amounts of overlap between the two lists).

Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the paragraph where Copernicus's 7 propositions are mentioned with that where the 6 "major parts" are listed certainly makes the text confusing, and this should be fixed.

Incidentally, Linton says in a footnote that the Commentariolus was first published in Warsaw in 1854. This contradicts the statements given in this Wikipedia article and the one on the Commentariolus that it was first published in 1858 1878 after a copy was found in Vienna in that year. This needs to be further investigated.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This web page contains an English translation of the first four sections of the Commentariolus, including Copernicus's 7 propositions. This translation's wording of these propositions is identical to that given in the book of Linton's cited above.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of rediscovery of the Commentariolus

As mentioned above, the date and place of publication (viz.1854 in Warsaw) given by C.M.Linton for Copernicus's Commenatariolus differs from that given in this Wikpedia article and the one on the Commenatariolus itself (1858 1878 in Vienna). In The Book Nobody Read Owen Gingerich gives a third completely different date. According to Gingerich the Commenatariolus was rediscovered for the first time in Stockholm in 1880, and then a second copy turn up in Vienna a few years later. So it would appear there is some considerable uncertainty about the correct date. Linton cites Alexandre Koyré's The Astronomical Revolution. Copernicus-Kepler-Borelli as his source, so this should be checked. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked Koyré's book and confirmed that Linton has quoted it accurately. According to Koyré a copy of the Commentariolus was also found in Vienna in 1878, as stated in the article, but it was not the first to be published. While the article doesn't explicitly say that the Viennese copy was the first to be published, its wording could very easily mislead a reader into inferring that this was the case. Since the Commentariolus is already mentioned earlier in the article, the offending text:

The Copernican system can be summarized in seven propositions, as Copernicus himself collected them in a Compendium of De revolutionibus that was found and published in 1878.

could also leave a reader with the mistaken impression that the "Compendium of De revolutionibus" mentioned here was a different document from the Commentariolus

I therefore request that the following edit be made to the article.

{{editprotected}}

• Replace all the text starting with "The Copernican system can be summarized ..." and ending at "6. The distance from the Earth to the sun is small compared to the distance to the stars." with the following text:

---------------------------Beginning of New text-----------------------

In his Commentariolus Copernicus summarized his system with the following list of seven propositions:<ref name="seven propositions">Rosen (1939, p.58)</ref>

1. There is no one center of all the celestial circles or spheres.
2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere.
3. All the spheres revolve about the sun as their mid-point, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe.
4. The ratio of the earth's distance from the sun to the height of the firmament is so much smaller than the ratio of the earth's radius to its distance from the sun that the distance from the earth to the sun is imperceptible in comparison with the height of the firmament.
5. Whatever motion appears in the firmament arises not from any motion of the firmament, but from the earth's motion. The earth together with its circumjacent elements performs a complete rotation on its fixed poles in a daily motion, while the firmament and highest heaven abide unchanged.
6. What appear to us as motions of the sun arise not from its motion but from the motion of the earth and our sphere, with which we revolve about the sun like any other planet. The earth has, then, more than one motion.
7. The apparent retrograde and direct motion of the planets arises not from their motion but from the earth's. The motion of the earth alone, therefore, suffices to explain so many apparent inequalities in the heavens.

---------------------------End of New text-----------------------

• Add the following reference to the Bibliography:

{{cite book | title = Three Copernican Treatises:The Commentariolus of Copernicus; The Letter against Werner; The Narratio Prima of Rheticus

| author= Rosen, Edward (translator)

| publisher= Columbia University Press

| year= 1939

| location= New York, NY}}

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this page. Please refrain from edit wars and discuss contentious issues here before implementing them, at least for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrospect II

Die ganze Auseinandersetzungen um Nationalitätsfragen auf dieser Seite sind total wahnsinnig und meiner Meinung vollig sinnlos. What a waste of time & energy — and space! Śmieszny! Sca 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cracow vs Kraków

Today's most common description in English for the origin of his father is clearly "Cracow", not "Kraków". [65] [66] That's why I see absolutely no sense in replacing "Cracow". Sciurinæ (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the proper page to discuss how the city is named, the proper page is the article about the city and its discussion page. Recently a discussion was held there, and the current accepted name was upheld. If you want to change it, please try to do it there.--Molobo (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says we have to use the current name for the city in a historical period? Was that done with Gda´nsk? Just because the article name is Kraków doesn't mean Cracow can so simply be eradicated everywhere. I was well aware of the Free City of Kraków-joke and native speakers are still not over it, as can be seen at the talk page. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a new guideline on Wiki regarding rules on naming do so on proper pages. Best regards.--Molobo (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to start a new guideline? You're saying this like there was already a guideline suggesting 'Kraków' everywhere if the article is at 'Kraków' and if I didn't like the widespread replacement of Cracow now, in which you also participate, I had to create a new guideline. Quite the opposite, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#Poland. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any involvement on your part in that particular guideline or anything relevant to this talk page. Once again discuss topics on their relevant pages.--Molobo (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made my case, you've made yours. Now I'd actually be more interested in what native speakers of English have to say about it. Thanks for your time. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, there seems to be an incessant campaign from some quarters to add "Vilna" (modern Vilnius) whenever they see Vilnius in an article (or try to get away with it). Is it safe to assume from your position on this talk page that you will be consistent and revert these efforts whenever you see them? Is there a difference? Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sciurinae wrote:

Now I'd actually be more interested in what native speakers of English have to say about it.

Well, I'm a native speaker of Australian English, which may not be representative of the other varieties, but for what it's worth:

• Until recently "Cracow" was the only spelling whose legitimacy I was aware of.
• The third edition (1997) of the Macquarie Dictionary (of Australian English) gives both "Cracow" and "Kraków"^{[see below]} as legitimate English spellings, with the former being the more common (presumably this might not necessarily apply outside Australia), and the latter being characterised as "Polish".
• I also have an old (1962) copy of Collier's Encyclopedia (a US publication) which introduces its article on Cracow with the heading "Kraków or Cracow", and, apart from the one instance of "Cracow" in the heading, otherwise uses the spelling "Kraków" exclusively. This may (or it may not) indicate that "Kraków" was the more common spelling in the US at that time, but at any rate it at least indicates that "Kraków" has been long established as a legitimate English spelling.

Given that both spellings are legitimate English, I don't particularly care which ends up getting used in the article, although I have a mild preference for "Cracow" (as the more obviously native English spelling). In my own writing I intend to use "Cracow" exclusively unless I am editing a WP article where an alternative usage has already been firmly established. However, I am not sufficiently fussed about the issue to bother reverting if some busybody wants to miscorrect any of my "Cracow"s to "Kraków"s.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another native English-speaker's opinion:

(But first I wish to commend David Wilson on his fine work in the "Nicolaus Copernicus" article, summarizing Copernicus' views, based on Copernicus' own writings.)

In Copernicus' time, Kraków was called "Cracovia" in Latin writings, was presumably referred to as "Krakau" by the city's German-speaking residents, and was "Kraków" to its Polish-speakers. No one in Poland – Pole, German or otherwise – called it "Cracow."

Major present-day American reference works (dictionaries, encyclopedias) call the city "Kraków."

In considering place-name versions, I would not necessarily be swayed by statistics. A Google search does, however, show "Krakow" or "Kraków" to be used ten times as often (34,300,000) as "Cracow" (3,400,000).

As a general rule, I would use present-day native place-names: here, "Kraków." In any case, in either spelling ("Kraków" or "Cracow"), English-speakers will tend to mispronounce the city's name identically. Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nihil novi, regarding your remark, No one in Poland - Pole, German or otherwise - called it Cracow. Hello, this about what the proper name in English is. You seem to have a problem comprehending that major issue. Whether or not Poles call Munich, Monachium, or even the Germans themselves call it München, it remains Munich in the English language and you are completely missing the point. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. I agree with you that David Wilson's efforts on this article are commendable.

Sorry for not having made myself clear. I am not interested in personal views regarding what is the "more correct" name at all, but how it should be handled in Wikipedia in respect to guidelines. I do agree that there should be one definite name here and reason that it should be "Cracow":

• Cracow
• Krakow
• Kraków

I've heard the "argument" that "Kraków" was the same as "Krakow" again and again, as often as I've wished to utter that "Cracow" was, almost needless to say, also the same as "Krakow" or "Kraków" then and that, if there was no difference between "Kraków" and "Krakow", why then would none of the advocates tolerate "Krakow"? Obviously, they see no difference between English and Polish Google results anymore, either. That's why I'm interested in what native speakers of (only) English have to say on the basis of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#Poland. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was addressing the application of the guidelines, although I must admit I did ramble off onto my personal preferences towards the end of my previous comment, and failed to make the point as explicitly as I should have. The Wikipedia naming convention guideline for Polish cities says:

Use the common English name or in absence thereof, the current Polish name.

The point of my previous comment was that both "Cracow" and "Kraków" are common English spellings for the name of the city being referred to (as is "Krakow" also), so the guideline is of no help in eliminating any of the alternatives as not being a "common English name".

I withdraw the Macquarie dictionary as an authority for the legitimacy of "Kraków", because I misunderstood its policy of always giving the foreign native equivalent for common English names for foreign cities. However, I will replace it with the Random House Webster's College Dictionary and the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, both of which list "Kraków" as the main entry and "Cracow" as an alternative. The Random House Webster's states explicitly that it lists what its compilers believe to be the most commonly used US English spelling as its main entries. I would presume that the online Mirriam-Webster's policies are similar, but I don't know that for sure. Curiously, the unabridged version of the online Mirriam-Webster lists "Cracow" as the main entry and "Krakow" (without the accent) as a variant. It doesn't list "Kraków" at all.

A few further comments:

• Like Dr. Dan I don't understand why the spelling or pronunciation of the name of the city by German-speaking or Polish-speaking inhabitants of Poland is at all relevant. The Wikipedia guidelines state that common English names should be used if one is available. However, the irrelevance of the Polish spelling cuts both ways: it does not follow that "Kraków" can't be a perfectly good English spelling merely because that's the way the Poles spell it. And in fact, the US English dictionaries I have cited seem to me to establish that it is a perfectly good English spelling.
• Nihil novi: Major present-day American reference works (dictionaries, encyclopedias) call the city "Kraków."

Indeed, some of them do. But I have found plenty of cases where they also call it "Cracow", just like the unabridged online Mirriam-Webster dictionary I cited above. In the 15th (2003) edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica the article on Copernicus uses the spelling "Cracow" throughout, except on the first occurrence of the name, where the alternative "Kraków" is given in parentheses after "Cracow". Its article on Poland, however, does use "Kraków" exclusively. The 1999 edition of the Encarta World English Dictionary is another which lists "Cracow" only (although the current online version gives "Kraków or Cracow").

• Nihil novi: A Google search does, however, show "Krakow" or "Kraków" to be used ten times as often (34,300,000) as "Cracow" (3,400,000)

This is only true if you include foreign language pages in the search. When I restrict the search to only English language pages (as recommended by Wikipedia naming conventions for geographic names), the numbers I get are roughly equal for the three alternatives. I get 1,290,000 for "Cracow", 1,390,000 for "Krakow" and 1,340,000 for "Kraków". This doesn't mean there are more than twice as many pages with "Krakow" and "Kraków" as there are with "Cracow", however, because there appear to be many pages containing both "Krakow" and "Kraków" together. A search for English-language pages containing either "Krakow" or "Kraków" returned about 1,420,000—i.e. about 10% more than those containing "Cracow".

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dissolution of the nationality section

It's completely absurd to remove the section and put titbits mixed with original research into other sections that don't really fit the name. Please secure consensus for such a radical change. You also removed the whole Copernicanism section and its contents ([67]). Sciurinæ (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the "nationality dispute" is subordinate to the broader idea that modern society honors Copernicus - basically, it should be an explanation of why some people honored him as a famous German and others as a famous Pole. Thus my first version[68] reflects this by condensing "Copernicanism" and "Nationality" into a terse "Celebration". I don't think I lost much sourced content from either of the parent sections in this version while reducing their bulk considerably. I did use some brief explanations which may need be improved to avoid any taint of original research or unsourced claims, and summarized unsourced statements from before without removing them completely. Still, I thought any objections to my extensive revision would focus on small portions of the text. See WP:Revert: "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." (emphasis theirs)

I should add that it is my belief that edit wars generally result not from bad editors, but bad articles - in particular, articles which are incomplete or poorly organized. It follows that no participant in an edit war fixes the problems that lead to it. My goal in editing has not been to win the war over what nationality he is, but to improve the article organization so that it is no longer divided into topics (a) Copernicus and (b) The Nationality Debate. (There is still a great deal of content which needs to be added, which I haven't addressed - for instance, there's one sentence about him being "governor" and nothing else about it!) I think once the debate is put in the appropriate context the editing disputes will end in a way everyone can agree with. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that you still cling to your novel interpretation of Copernicus's nationality, which cuts of what you call ethnicity and, whether more correct or not, constitutes original research. Anything that could imply his nationality is not so clear was simply removed because of this. Worse, yet, the edits seem to disregard completely what many sources say and insert their own interpretation not based on sources, but putting unrelated sources thereafter, as if they had anything in common. Finally, I cannot see in what way "Celebration" would be a better description for "Nationality" for the treatment of his nationality unless there is much talk about celebration going on this talk page. The trend of changing before discussing will not render any steadiness, especially not repeated wholesale rewriting. Smaller changes based on step-by-step argumentations that result in agreement provide steadiness. Surprising changes, which are as quickly inserted as removed, do not. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was you who reverted what many others had written and agreed upon. Stop disrupting this article by trying to insert stuff like "Enduring significance" and Polish boyscouts. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone agreed to any aspect of the current "Copernicanism" section, which is a shoddy mess of short unsourced statements which are more about the honoring of the man than any specific philosophy that could be called "Copernicanism". The article includes a comment that the first three paragraphs are consensus text that should be discussed. I don't understand how anyone can think it is inappropriate[69] to say that Copernicus' birthplace is preserved as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, nor to include the touching story of how Copernicus' old cathedral and the town in which it was located was restored in his honor. (Admittedly, the Polish Boy Scouts detail is a little extraordinary, and while it is repeated widely on the Net most of the references seem based on Frombork in the Polish Wikipedia, but I provided one reference which seemed to be independent) In any case, read WP:Revert. If you object to "Enduring significance" and Polish boyscouts then you're supposed to change those two items, and leave the part about Torun being a World Heritage Site and still allow that Frombork somehow got rebuilt for Copernicus' 500th birthday. An article cannot progress if every edit is met with plain reversion, as if the current sorry state of affairs is unimprovable. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The "Nationality" section, as presently written, strikes me as simultaneously superficial and superfluous. It deals less with who Copernicus was than with whom later generations in various countries have wanted him to be. If this section cannot be made more rigorous, we would be better off without it. Readers can draw their own conclusions about Copernicus from the rest of the article.

The information about Frombork being a World Heritage Site and about the town's rebuilding for the 500th anniversary of Copernicus' birth should be included in the article.

I also suggest that the entire "Quotes" section be moved to the Nicolaus Copernicus Wikiquote (where some of the quotes or portions of them already appear). Nihil novi (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Was Copernicus an astrologer?

The statement that he was needs a decent source. In The Book Nobody Read (p.201), after acknowledging that "astrology was part of the ethos of the times", Owen Gingerich states "it is surprising that there is nary a hint of it in De Revolutionibus. Nor is there any trace of interest in astrology in anything else that remains from Copernicus."

In a footnote to his translation of Rheticus's Narratio Prima in 3 Copernican Treatises (p.123), Edward Rosen says "I know of no evidence that Copernicus shared the astrological views of Rheticus" and suggests that J.L.E. Dreyer's conjecture that he did was based on Dreyer's insufficient knowledge of Rheticus's strong committment to astrology. The conjecture of Dreyer's that Rosen was referring to is made on page 333 of A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler: 'Nothing of this theory of monarchies [viz. Rheticus's astrological speculations] is mentioned by Copernicus himself, but we cannot doubt that Rheticus would not have inserted it in his account if he had not had it from his 'D. Doctor Praeceptor," as he always called him.' This is the only suggestion I have seen in any reliable source that Copernicus ever indulged in any astrological theorising or divination (although, I have to admit my search of the relevant literature has so far been very limited).

Presumably Copernicus must have possibly studied astrology as part of his medical degree studies, and it seems reasonable to suppose that he probably used it as a standard tool in his practice of medicine. However, that by itself would hardly make him an astrologer, any more than the study and use of mathematics by an engineer or economist would make them mathematicians. In any case, we apparently have no idea of the extent to which Copernicus even did use astrology in his practice of medicine. Though sceptics of astrology were only a small minority at that time, they were certainly not unheard of, and if Gingerich and Rosen are to be believed, there is simply no direct evidence at all to indicate what Copernicus's attitude towards astrology was. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "astrologer" term was added a few weeks ago without citation(s). I'm going to remove it since your ideas (above) are supported by highly-respected Copernican scholarship. Is there equally good scholarship to suggest that Copernicus was involved in astrology, to the degree that it should be noted in his article? - Astrochemist (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on what constitutes "being involved in" and what level of detail you think "should" be included in the article. I'm sufficiently well satisfied that Copernicus's medical studies would have included medical astrology that I wouldn't bother asking for it to be documented.^{[not any more—see below]} However, if If someone were to demand documentation [for the claim that Copernicus studied astrology] (which is always their right on WP), it might be a little tricky to provide it without falling foul of WP:SYN. The problem is that all biographies of Copernicus I have seen in sources I would regard as reliable merely say that he studied medicine at Padua, without specifically mentioning anything about astrology. It's probably not difficult to find a reliable source for the fact that medical astrology was a standard part of both medical theory and practice and the medical courses of the time (e.g. Roy Porter's book cited in the WP article on Medieval medicine would probably do). However, concluding from these two facts that Copernicus must have studied astrology constitutes an inference from a synthesis of published material, and so would technically violate the requirements of WP:SYN.

Also, while I see no harm in the article's mentioning that the medical theory and practice of the time was still largely medieval, or even including medical astrology among an illustrative list of its medieval features, I don't favour the way it currently singles out "astrological medicine" for special mention, which seems to me to be somewhat gratuitous. If astrological medicine is to get a mention, why not the doctrines of the four humours and signatures, which would appear to have been just as significant a part of the medical theory and practice of the time?

Since writing my previous comment, I have obtained one more datum. In The Copernican Revolution (p.94) Thomas Kuhn states: "It may even be significant that Copernicus, the author of the theory that ultimately deprived the heavens of special power, belonged to the minority group of Renaissance astronomers who did not cast horoscopes."

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On further reading I find that the evidence for Copernicus's having studied astrology is not as strong as I had previously thought. I had been labouring under the misapprehension that he was known to have completed a medical degree. However, Angus Armitage, in his biography, Copernicus, (p.51) says "Returning to Padua [from Ferrara, where he took his doctorate in canon law], he embarked on the study of medicine, ... . It was not unusual, at that period, for a churchman to learn something of the healing art, although he was expected to eschew surgery. Copernicus probably was not graduated in medicine ..." Given this indication that Copernicus did not complete a full medical course, I don't think the assertion that he studied any specific subdiscipline of medicine (such as medical astrology) should be made in a WP article without citing a reliable source. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Polish-born"?

Writing Polish-Born does not change the neutrality of the article. It also does not state that he was Polish, it simply means that he was born in a territory controlled by Poland. This is the same as stating that Albert Einstein was German-Born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing that annihilates the neutrality of the article. We have seen similar attempts many times. Ulm is in Germany, always was, while Thorn was in Royal Prussia, not Poland, as it was an autonomous region in personal union with the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. If you want to make comparisons, go to the articles on all those born in Congress Poland while part of Russian Empire, like Marie Curie or Henryk Sienkiewicz, and call them Russian-born. Good luck. You may come back when you have succeeded there.-- Matthead  DisOuß   00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. If you were to spend some times and look at the map of Poland in 1020, like is posted in wiki, you would see that that area was Polish. The fact that the Teutanic order expanded there for a brief period of time when Poland was in disunity does not change the fact that the Slavs there were likely Polish. Poland was formed by groups of villages of Slavic tribes from this area.

You did not at all respond to the fact that Albert Einstein is posted as German-Born, when Jewish families lived in segregated groups in the middle ages and simply moved to a country that was most tolarent for them. You also do not change the fact that when Copernicus was born, this territory again belonged to Poland. You have an individual who is born in a Historical Polish area, and who is born after the area had recently been reclaimed. By denying him a nationality you are simply attempting to change History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funny4life (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A map of 1020 is not really relevant for an article which deals with the 1500s. When Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan was an integral part of Imperial Russia (before they became Soviet republics), does that make Uzbeks or Kazakhs Russians? From the view of outsiders it might look so, but do they describe(d) themself as that? Similarly, Pomoranes, Kashubians, Prussians, Lithuanians, Belorussians are not Polish - and Copernicus was definitely not Polish but Prussian. He called himself Prussian and was called at his time "Borussus mathematicus" which means Prussian mathematician. Der Eberswalder (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"-born" implies the person was originally born there but moved away (for example, Serj Tankian is a Lebanese-born, Paul Jordan (Polish-born artist)). I've yet to see a source explaining that "Polish-born" is a reasonable conclusion in the dispute about his nationality. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthead, do not spread false information. Royal Prussia was not in personal union with Polish king. That's a lie, repeated constantly by most of German nationalist. It was integral part of Poland, with autonomy of course. The wording of the treaty is clear and precise on this. Similarly, Polish parliament in XVI century was clear about that, when Polish king tried to pretend it was otherwise. It was tied to Polish crown, not to Polish king. It was no personal union. ANd definetely it was not tied in any way to Grand Duke of Lithuania. Try to find some arguments to back your absurd thesis. Szopen (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and Wikiquotes

Most of Copernicus' quotations that appear in the "Nicolaus Copernicus" Quotes section are present in the Nicolaus Copernicus Wikiquote. Also present in the Copernicus Wikiquote is the entire Quotes-section Johann Wolfgang von Goethe quotation.

I propose that the remaining "Quotes" quotations likewise be transferred to Wikiquote, and the "Nicolaus Copernicus" Quotes section be closed. The proper place for extended quotations like these, relating to a biography, is Wikiquote. Nihil novi (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Copernicanism

The expression "Copernicanism" is used as a synonym to denote Copernicus' heliocentric theory. Since the latter theory is the subject of the "Nicolaus Copernicus" article's section on the "Copernican system," immediately preceding the current section entitled "Copernicanism," I'm not sure what exactly is the subject of the "Copernicanism" section.

This section does not expound the Copernican system. If its purpose is to proclaim the importance of that system, then it is both inadequate and probably superfluous. As now constituted, this section is a loose collection of pedestrian banalities that does not bring luster to Copernicus' name or to this article.

I suggest that the "Copernicanism" section be replaced with the article's "Later censorship" section. That would seem the chronologically and thematically more logical place for the latter. Nihil novi (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What Copernicanism is supposed to mean is belief in, or promotion of, Copernicus's heliocentric theory. In that sense, Rheticus was an important early Copernican. Finell (Talk) 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could draft a concise account of prominent Copernicans who promoted Copernicus' theory, incorporating the current "Later censorship" section. Nihil novi (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone already did draft a concise account of prominent Copernicans in the 17th century: Pierre Gassendi. See article on De revolutionibus.-- Matthead  DisOuß   08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

After Copernicus death, they found copies of manuscripts of the Islamic scholar Ibn AlShatir in his house proving that Copernicus was plagiarizing Ibn Alshatir work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.164.156 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for this claim? If you can substantiate it with credible evidence that would be a sensational contribution to Copernican scholarship. Until now, no-one has discovered any direct evidence that Copernicus ever saw anything of al-Shatir's work. Scholars have long suspected that he did, because of the great similarity between the mathematical details of their models, and evidence that details of al-Shatir's work might have been available in Italy at the time when Copernicus was there. However, I have never before heard of manuscript copies of al-Shatir's work being found in Copernicus's house.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On the meaning of "Kopernik"

It doesn't mean "one who works with copper". "Kopper" is German for copper, but -nik is a Slavic ending,, roughly corresponding to the Germanic -er. E.g. "ogrodnik", gardener (from "ogród", garden), naczelnik, commander; mianownik, the grammtical nominative case (literally "namer"); etc. The Polish word for copper is "miedz" (with a diagonal accent over the "z". "Koper" in Polish (more usually seen in the diminutive form "koperek") means "dill". "Kopernik therefore means "Diller". As in Phyllis. Whatever that might mean.

The arguments over Kopernik's "ethnicity" are anachronistic. Ethnic identity in the modern sense did not exist in the 15th and 16th centuries. Not being a member of the aristocracy or szlachta, Kopernik would not have been considered a member of the Polish "naród", or nation. Nor would he have been considered German. He was a member of the burgher estate and a subject of the Polish crown. He was educated at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, then the capital of Poland, but the language of instruction would have been Latin. He was a churchman and a scholar, therefore a member of the Europe-wide community of churchmen and scholars, whose language of communication was also Latin.

He was, in a word, on the one hand a European; on the other hand, a Polish citizen; and on the third hand a townsperson. What vernacular languages he did or didn't know are irrelevant to his national identity, a concept which as I have said did not then exist. 74.15.53.84 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC) gspaulsson

Would you please consider replacing the current content of the article's "Nationality" section, illustrations and all, with the above remarks? Nihil novi (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, no original research in the article, and no marginalizing of vernacular languages as irrelevant to his national identity. There was no Polish state in the 19th century, yet for certain subjects of the Russian Czar, Polish was/is very relevant to national identity,. Marie Curie, without doubt born as 19th century subject to the Russian Czar, and later with French citizenship, is anyway portrayed as predominantly Polish. Same for many others. On the other hand, Copernicus, a citizen of autonomous German-speaking Royal Prussia which had chosen to ally with the King of Poland, is claimed as "Polish". No double standards, please! Besides, in German, de:Kupfer means copper, with Kupfernickel being the copper-nickel (Nickeline) alloy used for coins, while de:Köper means twill, also rendered Küpper or Keper [70] with kepern referring to the act of weaving, a trade for which Silesia, where his father's ancestors came from, was known for, long before Heinrich Heine wrote about the Silesian Weavers de:Die schlesischen Weber. He did sign in at Bologna as Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn, I wonder how that can be explained in Polish? Copernicus did definitely write and speak in German, e.g. for the Prussian diet he prepared the original version of his treatise on money, later also written in Latin as Monetae Cudendae Ratio. Yet, he is currently not listed in Category:German writers, while somebody added a rather odd "Category:People in Polish history". -- Matthead  DisOuß   07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, Matthead, Polish identity was importent not only to Poles forced to become subjects of Tsar, but also important for Poles in Silesia, Wielkopolska, Pomerania, Galicia-forced to become subjects of Prussia and Austro-Hungary. As to German language-it has been explained over and over that it was simply a language used in documents and lingua franca and didn't determine nationality.--Molobo (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In Old-Polish "miedz" was sometimes called "koper". What's more, in 1427, in Wroclaw (Breslau) there was one "Stanisław Czawdener alias Coppernick". Stanislaus is strange name for a German, isn't it. Also it shows that "Coppernick" probably was a nickname. and today we have word "koperwas" for some substance with copper inside it. Szopen (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its really funny with what kind of desperate twists and turns a Polishness is fetched from far. While Nicolaus would be a strange name for a Pole, it was a very common name in Germany at the time, see Nikolaus von Kues and Nikolaus von Schönberg for two Germans having direct influence on their fellow German namesake. "Coppernickel" or "copper nickel" are used in English "for some substance with copper inside it"[71]. In German, its Kupfernickel [72]. In fact, the Nick in Nickel and Nickeline derives from Nikolaus, with German miners in the Ore Mountains calling the strange reddish ore after a nick name for the devil, Nickel ("Old Nick" in English). Cobalt was named in similar fashion, after kobolds.-- Matthead  DisOuß   14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, what twists? Koper may mean "Copper", or the name of the herb. In Old-Polish copper WAS called sometimes koper, probably as direct German influence. Similarly, we adopted several German names for other substances, despite having our own, original Polish names, Also, it's absurd to think that someone would name himself "coppernickel", while it's perfectly reasonable to name oneself "someone who works with copper".

Also, Mikolaj is and was acceptable name for Pole in times of Koperink. E.g. Mikolaj Traba, born in Sandomierz in 1358, Mikolaj from Chrzanow (born 1485), Mikolaj z Kurowa, archbishop of Gnesen, born somewhere in XIV century (died 1411) etc etc. Their names in latin were of course rendered as "Nicolaus". Cult of St. Nicolaus was once very popular in medieval Poland. In other words, name "Nicolaus" or "Copernicus" DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE WAS GERMAN (nor that he was Polish). Argument that he wasn't Pole because he had name "NICOLAUS" is just funny. Szopen (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We know him as Mikołaj Kopernik or Mikuláš Koperník, his name here is irrelevant for determination of his nationality. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gassendi's" Thill's list of Copernicans and anti-Copernicans

isn't— i.e. isn't Gassendi's. The De Revolutionibus article gives longer lists which it attributes to a "2002 update" of Gassendi's biography of Copernicus by one Olivier Thill. Since the article is far from clear on whether the lists were compiled by Gassendi or by Thill himself, I obtained a photocopy of Gassendi's biography yesterday, from a facsimile copy of his collected works, and have now gone through it. It contains no consolidated lists of Copernicans and anti-Copernicans at all, and of the 84 people named in the lists given in the De Revolutionibus article, it mentions only 26 that I could find. It's possible I might have missed 2 or 3 of them, but there is no way I could have missed a total of 58 (the whole biography is only 20 pages long). Of the people mentioned in the Copernicanism section of the Nicolaus Copernicus article as being among Gassendi's "Copernicans", he doesn't mention Comenius, Bruno, Mersenne or Descartes in his biography, and of those given as being among his "anti-Copernicans", he mentions none at all. So it would appear that Thill, rather than Gassendi, is responsible for these lists (although he obviously might have used Gassendi's biography as one of his sources).

This raises a few problems. First, Xulon Press, the printer of Mr Thill's book, appears to be a vanity press—i.e. they print and distribute books at the authors' expense. This means Mr Thill's book is a self-published source, and since he doesn't appear to be "an established expert" in Copernican scholarship, Wikipedia policy would seem to preclude his book from being considered a reliable source. This is actually a pity, since it looks to me like a pretty good book, judging from the extracts available in the googlebooks preview copy.

But, second, there are a few pecularites in the list of alleged Copernicans in the De Revolutionibus article:

• Any list which classifies Tycho Brahe as a "Copernican" (as the one in the De Revolutionibus article does) is using a rather idiosyncratic definition of the term. Although Brahe had an enormous respect for Copernicus himself, he adamantly rejected heliocentrism as a physical theory, and in fact, he set up his own geoheliocentric theory as an alternative.

• The list includes Johannes Amos Comenius, whose Synopsis Physicae was, according to Alexandre Koyré, "violently antagonistic to the new astronomy", and Nicholas Mulerius (aka Nicolas Müller) who, according to J.L.E.Dreyer, had written "that he had never yet met with any valid reason for rejecting the old system".

These, of course, might be errors introduced by whoever copied the lists from Thill's book. Unfortunately, the pages in the book which contain Thill's own lists are not available in the google books preview copy.

For listing people like Bruno, Kepler, Descartes and Rheticus as Copernicans, or Luther, Melancthon and Calvin as anti-Copernicans this shouldn't be a problem, since these classifications aren't controversial, and good documentation for them is readily available if anyone asks for it. But for the lesser known figures, such as Wapowski, Giese and Scaliger we really need good evidence. In the case of the first two, for instance, although we know they were both close friends of Copernicus, do we really know precisely what their attitude to his theory was? If so, how do we know? It requires proper documentation. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You have evidently made a thorough investigation into this question, and have presented your findings with admirable clarity and succinctness. Accordingly I propose that the pertinent paragraph be summarily deleted. The remainder of the section, if it does not contain other errors, can stand quite well without it.

A similar emendation should probably be made in the "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" article, from which I imported the misinformation into "Nicolaus Copernicus."

Thanks for your work on this. Nihil novi (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I had added [73] Thill's list from his home page [74] to the de rev article. It is quite helpful there, being a starting point to the article were their stance can be discussed in detail. In Thill' book, even lesser known figures like Christian Wursteisen [75] are mentioned, often neglected in other works which focus on well-known names. Soon, the concern about Brahe was raised [76], and emphasis was put on Thill being the author [77]. It was only Nihil novi's recent addition [78] to the Copernicus article that claimed it as Gassendi's. I'll remove the section, and also straighten out some other changes I can not agree with. In general, I disapprove of major undiscussed changes of this article, especially when controversial changes are made while doing so. -- Matthead  DisOuß   01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Nihil novi, despite the "emphasis" having been put on Thill's co-authorship of the biography, it is not at all clear from the text of the De Revolutionibus article (at least it wasn't to me) that the lists were being attributed to Thill rather than Gassendi. While they are introduced with the following text:

According to Olivier Thill's 2002 update of a biography written in 1654 by Pierre Gassendi, many persons, astronomers, theologians and others, knew about Copernicus's theory before 1615. Their stance is given as follows:

which does at least hint that they are not entirely due to Gassendi, they are immediately followed by the following text:

Identification of "Copernicans" or "anti-Copernicans" will vary depending on the criteria used. For instance, Gassendi apparently considered Tycho Brahe to be a supporter of Copernicus, even though Tycho plainly believed that the Earth did not move.

which tends to give the opposite impression.

Also, in a comment above, replying to Nihil novi, you yourself referred him to the De Revolutionibus article for information about "a concise account of prominent Copernicans" by Pierre Gassendi. It therefore seems to me to be a little harsh to say that it was "only" his addition to the Nicolaus Copernicus article which attributed the lists to Gassendi.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins subsection

I have some concerns about the organization and content of the Origins subsection of the section on Copernicus's Life.

First, the extent of the discussion of the history of Toruń is out of place in this article; the material belongs in the article on Toruń, if it is not already there. As a result of this digression, the first mention of Copernicus's family of origin is delayed until the fourth paragraph. Also, it is not clear that the two footnotes in the three paragraphs about Toruń's history support all of the detailed history, particularly the statements in the second paragraph.

Second, the paragraph on Copernicus's ethnicity seems to me to be properly part of the Nationality section — although that section is already too long, as compared with other English language encyclopedias.

Third, the two paragraphs about Copernicus's names are not about his "Origins"; they are mostly about names by which he was called. And what is the point of these two paragraphs? Why is it relevant that someone invented a new spelling of one version of his name 233 years after he died? Finell (Talk) 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, and hope that the article's "Origins" subsection will be amended accordingly. Nihil novi (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We can re-organize the sections, but I will not accept deletion of sourced facts which seem to be very unpleasant to the POV of some. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with anyone's POV? Three paragraphs on Toruń, sourced or not, have no place in an article on Nicolaus Copernicus; that material belongs in the Toruń article. Is the name business part of the ethnicity/nationality issue? If so, put it under Nationality. But how does the spelling of someone who wrote two centuries after Copernicus have anything to do with anything? Finell (Talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality and the Catholic Encyclopedia

The second paragraph of the Nationality section begins, "While the Catholic Encyclopedia does not attribute a nationality ...". This statement, in its context, is misleading because it implies that this was a considered editorial judgment that no nationality should be attributed to Copernicus. So far as I can tell, the Catholic Encyclopedia generally does not attribute nationality to its subjects. I looked at several Catholic Encyclopedia articles—on Galileo, Oresme, Christopher Columbus, Leonardo da Vinci (referred to as Florentine), Pacioli, Raphael, Titian (referred to as Venetian), Pope Leo XIII, Henry VIII, Martin Luther, Wilhelm Emmanuel, Onno Klopp—and did not see nationality attributions in any of them. In view of this, the fact that "the Catholic Encyclopedia does not attribute a nationality" to Copernicus is not relevant to whether a nationality should properly be ascribed to him. Unless a reasoned argument to the contrary is presented, I intend to delete this statement. Finell (Talk) 09:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of history-world.org

I believe that [79] cannot be assumed as reliable source, because it is a place of user-submitted essays. It works like IMDB or Wikipedia, thus it cannot be claimed as a primary source, see here [80]. I removed sentence sourced by this. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this source isn't reliable. However it's not really an essay, it's an extract from a book, Great Astronomers by Robert Stawell Ball, an eminent Irish astronomer who lived from 1840 to 1913. The book was first published in 1901, and free electronic copies are available all over the internet, including one by the Gutenberg project.

Unfortunately the book contains so many easily demonstrable errors of historical detail that I cannot regard it as a trustworthy source on any matters about which I am still ignorant.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case, should we retain, in the "Nationality" section, the information that "Sir Robert Stawell [Ball] wrote that he believes Copernicus mother was German" (with referral to current note #28)? Nihil novi (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Ball citation (5 pages). His ignorance of Copernicus' life is appalling. He evidently never bothered even to read what Encyclopaedia Britannica had to say about Copernicus. Nothing he might opine about the astronomer's command of languages can be taken seriously; therefore I have deleted that reference. Nihil novi (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the source is hardly notable, or historic, it can be safely removed.--Molobo (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the three four of you agree that Ball did write something you dislike, how about sharing it? And, Nihil Novi, what exactly did Ball "opine about the astronomer's command of languages"? It is proven and obvious that Copernicus had written and spoken both Latin and the German language of his time and area, e.g. in his treatise on money. He also translated from old Greek. Are there any other languages which "can be taken seriously"? Some Italian maybe, considering that he studied in Italy for quite some time? -- Matthead  Discuß   23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In those days German was an academic language together with Latin. It doesn't prove that it was his mother language so of course other languages can be taken seriously, why not? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right: It was a Wikipedia editor (you?) who claimed that most scholars are agreed that Copernicus' "mother tongue" was German—and cited as authority this text of Ball's, which does not make that claim.

By your argument regarding Italy, Copernicus—having studied in southern Poland—must also have known Polish.

Ball makes no mention of Copernicus having studied in Italy. What Ball does say is that Copernicus studied at Kraków, where it would seem "he devoted himself more particularly to the study of medicine, with the view of adopting its practice as the profession of his life." In fact, he did not study medicine at Kraków. He studied medicine, as well as law (and astronomy), at three Italian universities.

Is that enough nonsense from Ball to satisfy you? Nihil novi (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If not, I have compiled a list of historical errors I have come across in scanning the first few chapters of Ball's book. It's rather lengthy, so rather than cluttering up this page by posting it here, I have put it on this subpage of my talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well worth reading. An appalling picture of unspeakably shoddy "scholarship" by Ball. Nihil novi (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reversions

A recent edit (with no edit summary) reverted the last paragraph of the Heliocentrism section and the entire Copernicanism section to the versions of January 11th. Since that time Nihil Novi had done a lot of good work improving the Copernicanism section, and I had modified the last paragraph of the Heliocentrism section because it was not NPOV—to wit, on a particular issue it had presented just a single view, in spite of the fact that there are several eminent scholars who hold an opposing view. I had provided impeccable documentation for this.

Please do not do this. To undo these edits I have reverted the article to the version of 20:46, January 22, 2008 by Nihil novi. I believe this preserves the effect of the subsequent edits by Tulkolahten and Sciurinæ, but I apologise if this is not the case. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bogus "citation-neededs"

Incomprehensibly, Matthead has introduced into the article's "Nationality" section large numbers of "citation-needed" notices where these were not needed, since all this information was cited after the same source, which was given: Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary). Thus the information I had given was perfectly verifiable, and the "citation-needed" notices created the incorrect impression that I had given the information without reliance on a source. These notices should be removed.

Also, Matthead's statement that up to World War II the name of Copernicus' ancestral village in Silesia had a German spelling is disingenuous; the spellings that I had cited, from Polski słownik biograficzny, came from medieval times. Nihil novi (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

disingenuous, dear Nihil novi?-- Matthead  Discuß   08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted those changes and I appealed Matthed to join our discussion here. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You twice reverted to Nihil Novis last version, deleting the 2300 bytes I had added. Where's your discussion on that? -- Matthead  Discuß   08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me get that straight - Polish Biographical Dictionary provides a couple of names of a Silesian village from which Copernicus' ancestors may have come from, as an indication of his alleged Polishness? What about the names the astronomer and his father used himself, are these insignificant in comparison? Or the German language Copernicus used? Does Polish Biographical Dictionary also list works he has written in Polish? How about presenting English sources, or at least Polish ones that can be read online and thus verified, as far as English Wikipedia editors are supposed to do this with Polish sources anyway? I have several German books here, yet I barely cite from them. And even when I cite English sources that can be read on Google Books they get removed immediately, by Molobo, Tulkolaten, etc.

Bogus, indeed, like stating 'Mikołaj, syn Mikołaja z Torunia opłacił wszystko' [81] when the records say "Nicolaus Nicolai de Thuronia solvit totum" [82], twisting Thuronia into Torunia in the process. So much about the names of towns in Polish sources. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? "Thuronia" here is Latin for "Toruń." "Torunia" is the Polish genitive, or possessive, case of "Toruń." The meaning is exactly the same. The Polish writer has not altered it in any way. Why do you stoop to misdirection? Nihil novi (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. To support your statements you provided a map, well if I provide Finnish map then all names there will be Finnish, is it support that some city was named in Finnish until 1945? And also several books older than old like this [83]. What about some current literature? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we all believe that the nationality issue is not the most important aspect of this article, a short paragraph mentioning that there was a debate if Mikołaj Kopernik was Polish or German existed, especially in XIX century, but now most major world encyclopedias mention him as a Pole, with the exception of Germany.--Molobo (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality section

Can someone try and shorten it by at least 60%? It is one of the less interesting and important aspects of his life, and should not be given undue attention. Kusma (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you shorten it, someone will add a bit, then a bit more, and it will grow again. If you try to move it into a separate article, it will be deleted. We went through this before. Szopen (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, as Matthead has not answered me, I assume he will stop repeating the false information about a "personal union" between Prussia and Poland, which never existed. Royal Prussia was part of the Crown; no matter who ruled Poland, he was automatically king of Prussia. The Prussians had seats allocated to them in the Polish parliament, though they didn't occupy them until the tumultous situation which led to the Union of Lublin. The Polish parliament several times stressed that Royal Prussia was not owned by the king but by the Polish Crown. Szopen (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

1. he was automatically king of Prussia??? that is false. The fact is, that there was no King of Prussia until 1701.

Yikes, I made a mistake. "he was autmatically RULER of Prussia", that's what I had in mind. You are right of course. Szopen (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2. to the question of Nicolaus Copernicus' Nationality - There is one very simple short answer:

Prussian Ius Indigenatus (of Prussian Nationality) MfG 5 February 2008

Which means, not German and not Polish, right? Szopen (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad 1: The King in Prussia from 1701 was a King of (among other lands) only former Ducal Prussia not Royal Prussia which was an integral part of Poland until 1772. What Szopen meant (I think) was that whoever was the King of Poland was a ruler of Prussia.
Ad 2: Ius indigenatus DID NOT say that whoever was born in either Royal Prussia or Ducal couldn't be Polish. If you are wondering what it meant I can tell you: that no offices in Prussia can be held by people not born in Prussia. This rule was broken so many times it's not even funny.
Space Cadet (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Prussian nation-there were Prussian tribes but they have been exterminated by German knights.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

-Thank you for your opinion-

Molobo, I could recommend you several books on the topic. In fact, there are some arguments about existence of "Prussian nation" - or, more precisely, something, which was just _developing_, something different from both German and POlish. Calling Kopernik "Prussian" would be IMHO justified, but it would led to misunderstanding, because today most people understand "Prussian" as the same as "German" which wasn't true in his time. Szopen (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Szopen, are you also neither Polish nor German but Prussian? You are from Posen, so Ius Indigenatus applies to you as well, right? Space Cadet (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet, I am Polish, because I think about myself as about Polish. I am also Poznaniak. I can't possibly be Prussian, because at the time of my birth, place of my birth was not under Prussian jurisdiction. This is my self-designation. We don't have any documents which would show us, what was self-designation of Copernicus. I would say he was both Polish-German and most of all "Prussian". Space Cadet, have you read the books I recomended to you? You know, about how Prussians were seeing themselves in XVI century?

For the record, they were not Germans. Germans were also seen in Prussia as "foreigners". Even in 17th century in Duchy of Prussia. Szopen (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not seriosly questioning your Polishness, but the people you're making compromises with. Your "Krawaciarz" friend, Space Cadet (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

..."but the people you're making compromises with ". Hmm? And what's wrong with that? That seems to be missing the point even more. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is we're making a compromise with German revisionists against all encyclopedic sources. What's next? A compromise with NPD, or maybe with Holocaust deniers, or finally perhaps with creationists about allowing their unscientific faith in schools? Think about it. Your friend, Space Cadet (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording

"Nevertheless, some Germans have preferred to view Copernicus as a compatriot of their own." this sentence should be changed to "Some have preferred". Historically in Scandinavia and other parts of continental Europe he was also often seen as German and only the younger overwhelming influence of the anglophone world has maybe changed this opinion. (To me it seems as if for example many wikipedias - not the Polish and the German one, which both have many very active members - but many others are to a large extent simply tranlations of the English Wikipidia, not because the English Wikipedia is the best or most correct, but because everyone knows English and thatswhy looks about the English Wikipedia) By saying "some Germans" you imply that the German aspect of his life is only acknowleged by Germans or even German nationalists, which is not true. 88.73.237.52 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nationality vs. Ethnicity

I've read the debate about Copernicus' nationality/ethnicity. Based on the comments and the standard Wikipedia designation of a person's origins, I have made the following changes that I believe signifcantly improve the accuracy of the article:

-Added ",Polish astronomer," and changed "astronomer" to "person" in the first paragraph because it designates a person's nationality (for example, see Eduard von Simson (German nationality, Jewish ethnicity); Carlos Slim (Mexican nationality, Lebanese ethnicity); Lucy Liu (American nationality; Chinese ethnicity)). Because Copernicus was born in the Kingdom of Poland (and died in Poland) there is no ambiguity with respect to his nationality.

-Changed the "Nationality" section to "Ethnicity" per the above and because this section does not disucss his nationality but his ethnicity ("Copernicus' ethnicity is uncertain"...). --Astronomer28 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "was a Polish astronomer and the first person..." for better flow. --Astronomer28 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanation was horribly WP:OR. You're no more convincing (if you're another person). If you think "Polish" only refers to nationality, which is to say where someone officially resided, please go first to Jan Dzierzon and replace "Polish" with "German" since that was his citizenship (ie in your opinion his "nationality"). Sciurinæ (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article you mentioned, Jan Dzierzon was born in Prussia, so that would make him Prussian, not German. However, the article stated that he considered himself Polish, so I would think that's why he was designated as being Polish. Otherwise I would think he should be considered Prussian (BTW, thank you for suggesting I make the modification, but I'm not interested in Jan Dzierzon, I'm interested in Copernicus). Thus, my reasons for the changes are not WP:OR and my examples are relevant, especially since Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, and pretty much every other version of Wikipedia (except only the German and Dutch versions?) list Copernicus as Polish, presumably for similar reasons.--Astronomer28 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're making absolutely no sense. You defined for Copernicus that Polish/German/etc = nationality = where that person lived. I pointed out that this was the complete reverse in Dzierzon's case and you immediately created a law that would "work" in both cases by adding the subjective factor presumed self-perception which does not apply to Copernicus. To settle anything, you need to stick to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Even if you have a source that separates nationality and ethnicity, you'll need one on the very subject of Copernicus that argues that a distinction should be made between those two before even being able to bring up ethnicity and even if you can find one, this will need to be stacked up against all those otherwise. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about sudden strikes where a supposedly new editor leaps in, disrupts and starts revert warring demanding that his new version should be immediately accepted before and during its discussion. Sciurinæ (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronomer28's arguments make a good deal of sense. An individual's ethnic self-identification should be considered. Absent such a declaration, citizenship is sometimes a useful guide, assuming that said citizenship was not tacitly or overtly contested by the individual. I would support restoring Astronomer28's version of the lead and of the "Ethnicity"-section title. Nihil novi (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Space Cadet (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with my fellow editors, the arguments made by Astronomer28 seem well thought and I would support them.--Molobo (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV (per the policy, the most significant and reliable resources in this case are probably the International Astronomical Union, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, Encylopedia Americana, all of which state that Copernicus was Polish) and the WP:NOR (citing the sources above) are exactly why Copernicus should be identified as being Polish, with the ethnicity section (i.e., debate) included below. To summarize: the neutral point of view is that Copernicus was Polish based on the most significant and reliable secondary research. Therefore, I'm reverting back to "...was a Polish astronomer" and changing the section back to "Ethnicity". Astronomer28 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's make Wikipedia a mirror of Encarta and others, repeating all their errors. For comparison: Norman Davies, a scholar honoured by Poland (and being criticized for echoing Polish POV elsewhere), does not dare to speak of Copernicus as Polish, but gives a rather balanced view, which includes "described himself as Prussian" and "a prominent German churchman and scientist" [84]. In the 19th century, "Great efforts were made to prove and exaggerate the 'Polishness' of men and women whose achievements were thought to bolster the self-esteem of the emergent nation".[85] Sorry, the "Polish astronomer" hoax is dead, and certain printed encyclopedias smell funny. As do certain user accounts, I have to say. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus was neither by Nationality nor by Ethnicity nor by Citizenship Polish

Whoever puts in that Copernicus was Polish- puts in an incorrect statement- if not a lie.

There are numerous references all over that he was German-language speaking and writing, born in Prussia and working in Prussian exempt Prince-Bishopric Ermland (Warmia). His father's family was from Silesia, which some of them also had business in Krakow, at that time a Hanseatic city with German-language burghers citizens. Some already lived in Thorn before 1400. Copernicus was related to the Von Allen family, the other uncle Tideman von Allen, who raised him along with uncle Lucas Watzenrode. Copernicus himself referred to his homeland as Prussia, he is referred to by a number of early sources, portraits etc as Prussian, Prussia did have a Prussian Ius Indigenatus- nationality. Copernicus was neither by Nationality nor by citizenship Polish. MfG 27.Feb 2008

Copernicus' Family in Thorn: Lucas Watzenrode the Elder (German also Lukas, Polish Łukasz) (1400 – 1462) was a trader in the Hanseatic city of Thorn (Toruń), father of bishop Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, and grandfather of the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

Life Watzenrode the Elder was born 1400 in Thorn, Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, as a child of a German trader family. In the Thorner Bürger Buch ("Thorun citizen registry book") he was registered as landowner, businessmen, judge, councilman etc., living at Seglergasse ("sailor alley") in Thorn. He was married to Katharina von Rüdiger in 1436. In 1448, he and other burghers of Thorn are recorded as having been summoned to the court at Limburg. He died at his birthplace in 1462.

Offspring In addition to their son Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, who became bishop of Ermeland and strongly supported the independence of Ermeland, Lucas and his wife Katharina had two daughters who both were married in Thorn, Barbara to Nicolas Koppernigk, Christina to Tideman von Allen.

When Barbara Koppernigk and her husband had died, Lucas the Younger took care of their four children, Katharina, Barbara, Andreas and Nicolaus, who would become known as Nicolaus Copernicus, the astronomer.

Christina and Tideman's daughter Cordula von Allen married Reinhold Feldstedt, who was born 1468 in Danzig (Gdańsk) and died 1529 in Danzig. Their daughter Katharina Feldstedt married Herman Giese, born 1523 in Danzig. Tiedemann Giese, a famous bishop of Warmia (Ermeland), was a descendant.

References

• Library Danzig, J. Kretzmer, Liber de episcopatu et episcopi Varmiensis ex vetusto Chronico Bibliotheca Heilsbergensis, 1593
• Christoph Hartknoch, Preussische Kirchen-Historia, Frankfurt a.M., 1668
• M.G. Centner, Geehrte und Gelehrte Thorner, Thorn 1763
• A. Semrau, "Katalog der Geschlechter der Schöffenbank und des Ratsstuhles in der Altstadt Thorn 1233-1602", in: Mitteilungen des Copernicus-Vereins für Wissenschaft und Kunst zu Thorn 46 (1938)
• Wojciech Iwanczak, "Lucas Watzenrode", in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Bautz Verlag [86]
• Poczet biskupów warmińskich, Olsztyn 1998

More or a number of Koppernik family relatives of Nicolaus Copernicus of the family that originated in or near Koppernick or Koppirnick von Frankenstein in Silesia. From there many people moved to Prussia with Teutonic Knights or the Hanseatic League.

In the Thorn Schöffenbuch- Law books of city of Thorn a Margarete Köppirnick received inheritance, and a Koppirsmede is recorded (German for copper smith) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MAP OF PRUSSIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blaeu_1645_-_Prussia.jpg in 1600s with THORN, FRAUENBURG, ALLENSTEIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. What about his Polish father with a Polish surname - "KOPERNIK", whose family came from a Polish village of "Koperniki" in the land of Silesia whose countryside population was at that time by vast majority Polish (and remained so until XIX century) and which belonged to Polish dukes from the Piast dynasty - mainly Henry IV Probus and Boleslaw II??? Is this a lie too???

2. Wrong! He was Polish by "citizenship". Torun (Thorn) and "Royal Prussia" was an INTEGRAL part of the Kingdom of Poland sine it was conquered by Poles and ceded to Poland in 1466.

The question of Copernicus' ethnicity is separate from his nationality. Again, there is no ambiguity with respect to his nationality, the debate is about his ethnicity, and the neutral point of view is that Copernicus was Polish. Someone erased "Polish" again. Please state why the next time you make changes. Thank you. Astronomer28 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Question: What was the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus? Answer: This question cannot be answered without upsetting some people. Any patriotic Pole would say that there is no question but that Copernicus belongs to Poland. Many Germans would argue, and have argued, that Copernicus was more German than Pole. Scholars have debated endlessly on this (for the outsider at least) irrelevant question. Copernicus's father was certainly of Polish descent. Copernicus himself went to a Polish rather than to a German university. On the other hand, Copernicus is known to have registered himself in a German fraternity while he was a student in Bologna, Italy. And he also wrote at least one work in German. In any case, Copernicus's name should be put in a list of luminaries who belong to the world at large."

Raman, Varadaraja V. (2000-12-04). "Nicolaus Copernicus", Variety in Science History: A Collection of Papers, 1, Xlibris Corporation, 368. ISBN 0738820873. 

In your summary of the edit, you wrote, "no quarrelsome versions! please read the source and don't enforce your personal views." This is not my personal view, it's the view of the International Astronomical Union, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, Encylopedia Americana (these are probably the most significant and reliable sources in this case; see the WP:NPOV), and almost every other version of Wikipedia (German and Dutch excluded?). The fact that Copernicus was a Polish national (born in Poland, fought for Poland, died in Poland) is not debatable; his ethnicity certainly is, which is what you're discussing. Astronomer28 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Fought for Poland?" When, where? The man sided with the fellow German-speaking Prussian locals of Allenstein (sic!) in a civil war like conflict against the German-speaking Teutonic Knights. The King of Poland himself first opposed the Order, then made an arrangement with the leader of the Teutonic Order, pronouncing him Duke of Prussia. Does that mean the King of Poland sided with the Teutonic Knights, and that he was a betrayer to the Polish cause? And no, encyclopedias which still echo traces of old Anglo-Saxon 20th-century anti-German POV, propaganda of two World Wars, or 19th century Polish nationalism, are not "the most significant and reliable sources in this case". A "Polish astronomer" who left no trace of speaking or writing Polish? No way. Let's keep the article neutral, and fight attempts to make it national. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to "Also, the fact that Copernicus oversaw the defense of Olsztyn Castle at the head of Royal Polish forces when the town was besieged by the Teutonic Knights, supports the claim that his bond with the Kingdom of Poland was much stronger than his German ties." Please see my post above about other individuals' nationality vs. ethnicity designation. What other more significant and reliable sources can you name other than the "IAU", "EB", "EE", "EA", that identify Copernicus as not being Polish? Your statement, "encyclopedias which still echo traces of old Anglo-Saxon 20th-sentury anti-German POV" does not qualify as a neutral/objective/verifiable reason for not classifying Copernicus as a Polish national. Astronomer28 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to pin a specific nationality on Copernicus. --clpo13_(talk) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With increasing competition by Wikipedia, Google Books, etc. those encyclopedias might even start to get their act together and clean up their articles some day. I would not be surprised if "Polish" would disappear from the Copernicus entries of Encarta and EB. After all, old fashioned printed (or in any way commercial) encyclopedias can only survive if they improve their reliability, which was criticized in numerous comparisons. Reliability, of course, is also a main issue for Wikipedia. That is why we mention the fact that some (competing) sources, and Poles, call him Polish, while modern scholars give a balanced view rather than take a side. Thus, no "Polish" in the intro or the categories, but a well-sourced documentation of facts (and the lack thereof) regarding his nationality. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The language one speaks or writes is not the most important determinant of one's nationality. King George I of Great Britain knew little, if any, English when he assumed the British throne in 1714 at age 54. The same may be said of Catherine the Great's knowledge of Russian before she moved to Russia. Nihil novi (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You missed the Saxons who were elected as king of Poland several times. A lot of Germans have "worked" abroad, so what? It is boring to witness these ongoing desperate attempts to marginalize the fact that Copernicus did speak and write the German dialect in Prussia, while no evidence of even basic skills in Polish are extant. Also, to repeat it for the umpteenth time, how come some 19th century people are considered Polish, if not for language (and Catholic faith)? Marie Curie was born a subject of the Russian Czar, thus with Russian nationality. There was no Polish nationality until she was 50 years old. Her Nobel and other honours were awarded much earlier, Poland can not "claim" them. Chopin has chosen Paris over Warsaw also. How come the most famous "Poles" did spend most of their lives outside of Poland or a Polish-speaking environment, and in case of Copernicus, did not even speak Polish? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)