Jump to content

Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.118.193.161 (talk) at 19:43, 19 February 2014 (→RfC: rewrite of the nationality section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeNicolaus Copernicus was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

RfC: rewrite of the nationality section

This article has been hounded by nationalist disputes for many years with probably Megabytes of pure discussion on the talk page. These wars slowly decreased and for three years the article was almost free of these petty wars and a version that was accepted by both sides became stable. In February however, the account User:Astronomer28 wrote a new version of the nationality section and seeks to establish his new version with reverting, arguing that it was shorter. I believe that his version seeks to misrepresent the entire dispute, removes reliable sources and is intentionally biased. He claimed that only his version would be NPOV [1] "because the NPOV is that he was Polish" [2]. The Copernicus article was a good article nominee with a more elaborate nationality section. In my opinion the previous version of the section should continue to be used or be modified without attempts to advance a POV. --walkeetalkee 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)P.S. Running ngrams for "German astronomer Copernicus,Polish astronomer Copernicus", no results for German. Of course this is looking for exact matches of the phrase, but one would have expected some since "German" seems more popular in 19th century sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit says "Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich." The source (p. 60) actually says, "Following the customary tustle over the ethnic identity of Copernicus [at the VIIth International Historical Congress in Warsaw August 1933]."[4] First, it is inflammatory to associate what was a normal position for German scholars from Imperial times with nazi Germany. Secondly, they were discussing ethnicity, not nationality. TFD (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An apt summary of Burleigh (and just with ref, name not needed inline) and first sentence for the section might simply be "German and Polish scholars have both claimed Copernicus as their own." In fairness regarding the time of Third Reich content, there were a lot of German uber alles claims at the time. You're synthesizing that there is a synthesis creating some accusatory continuum of Nazism going back to Imperial Germany. That's not advancing the conversation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the previous version per walkee. Larkusix (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support goes to the old (longer, walkee) version. The debate and the hassle started as early as 1726 when Papadopoli wrongly (for whatever reason) claimed that Copernicus joined the Polish natio in Padua - a claim that impressed 150 years of scholars with assigning him Polish roots until the "mistake" was cleared around 1880, when it became clear that Padua had no Polish natio and in Bologna he had joined the German natio despite the existence of a Polish one there. I do not want to reopen the debate, apart from stating that a "majority view" is neither a necessary nor sufficient argument for any truth, especially when we look back at 150 years of wrong assumptions to start with. The new version however implies (subtly, but still) that the debate is rooted in the fascist ideology, which it is clearly not. ASchudak (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a joke because polish was not a language witch was very popular in this time that means even when the mother language would have been polish he would have prefered to speak German ore Latin. Sorry my polish friends but this discussion is a running joke. Johann

Schweidnitz vs Świdnica

Referring to my previous post in the discussion, I would like to add that I am very surprised by blocking of the article (and I don't think this is because of my interference with its contents ...). Nevertheless I would like to discuss a minor correction of text in the "Mother's family". Namely, the current text: "The Watzenrodes had come from the Schweidnitz (Świdnica) region of Silesia and had settled in Toruń after 1360," I propose replace to: "The Watzenrode family had come from Silesia from near the Świdnica (Schweidnitz) and had settled in Toruń after 1360,". You can see that it's merely minor stylistic patch which recognizes Wikipedia rules as to inserting links. Unrelated to the issue of nationality of the great astronomer. Regards, --Robsuper (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.Volunteer Marek 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of German and Polish variants of placenames is determined in the wellknown Gdansk vote (see Talk:Gdansk). Volunteer Marek is a staunch defender of that policy, especially regarding the binding character of the settled dates. A slight hint would have been adequate. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Go for it"? ... I think you know better - don't you Marek?? Well, just the usual suspects. Robsuper, have a look at the top of this talk-page ↑↑ [5], thanks!--IIIraute (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive text, thanks a lot for the tip. My proposal seems to be consistent with these findings. --Robsuper (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One vote of support and lack of objections, after more than two months, so I can assume my proposal was accepted. Thank you. --Robsuper (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German?

Per List of German inventions, should Copernicus be regarded as "German"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources rather than opinions of some IP: Copernicus "German astronomer" brings up hits which are talking about Copernicus' influence on Kepler or his relations with Rheticus (German astronomers). Copernicus "Polish astronomer" has sources which are actually referring to Copernicus. Or here is Britannica.Volunteer Marek 06:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was of course no Germany at the time, but it is disputed whether Copernicus was ethnically and culturally German or Polish. TFD (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Still, need sources.Volunteer Marek 07:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, there was no Germany in Kepler's time either but there's a ton of sources which happily and rightly describe him as a "German astronomer".Volunteer Marek 07:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His family background is mentioned in the article and is sourced. TFD (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.Volunteer Marek 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Copernicus was born in Royal Prussia, which was just a decade before his birth still part of the State of the Teutonic Order, and there is evidence he spoke and wrote German and had strong German ties (as joining he German natio in Bologna) you can imho safely put him into the "German" category. As Royal Prussia acknowledged the Polish king as souvereign and in the decades to come became incorporated into Poland (until the partition some 300 years later) and he lived and studied in Cracow you can also put him into the Polish category. He was a citizen of Prussia during this time of transition from a German dominated state into a Polish province (just as the rest of the Teutonic order during his lifetime), and so I think you can use both, either or no classification (calling him just Prussian). His parents or family might have German roots, but his descendants (if there had been any) certainly would have become Polish. ASchudak (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before (particularly the "German natio" in Bologna - see the section on "Languages"). Again, at the end of the day you need sources which call him a "German astronomer" or ones which call him a "Polish astronomer". There really aren't any for the former, at least not ones dating to after WWI. There's plenty for the latter. There are also very few which refer to him as "Polish-German Astronomer" [6].
I actually don't care if his nationality is mentioned in the lede or not. The part that annoys me is that some users abuse this "no nationality in the lede" dictum to remove any mention of his association with Poland (like the fact that he led Polish troops in battle, that he was a finance minister to the Polish king, etc.). That right there is sacrificing the encyclopedianess of the article and inclusion of useful information on the altar of nationalistic intransigence.Volunteer Marek 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say he was a "Polish astronomer" then we should say so. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with ArtifexMayhem, Copernicus should be mentioned as "Polish astronomer". --Yemote (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And could you change the Schweidnitz (Świdnica). Swidnica was under Piast (Polish royal family) rule up to 1380 and after that long in Bohemia (a Slavic rule) the name was originally and long after Copernicus Świdnica. Watzenrodes (Copernicus' mather) family moved from there somewhat around 1380 into mainland of Polish Kingdom. It is unknown how many generation they were in Świdnica, however we know they were in close relation to Polish Royal interests and Polish families merchants a noble already there. --Yemote (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Copernicus is a German astronom. NightoverBratland (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography he was a "Polish doctor and astronomer" - could someone add it to the list of sources referring to Copernicus as Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To: editors: Wester and William M. Connolley

blocked sockism

Could you explain why you reverted edit of user Oliszydlowski on article -Copernicus-? Please read the talk page and the context of the article. Although Copernicu’s mother had German family name and Copernicus was speaking German beside Polish and Latin, it has no meaning. It is because the Watzenrode family was in Polish territories more than 100 years earlier, were intermarried with Polish families, the family was loyal subjects to Polish Royalty and Polish nation interests. Copernicu’s mother was at least half Polish, her mother was from well known Polish family Modlibog. German language was commonly used as trade language in Polish cities at that time since the bourgeoisie were commonly recruited from German countries by Polish Kings and Polish Dukes. Speaking German does not mean to be a member of German nation even presently. The German language is the main and/or official Language in Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Lichtenstein and Luxemburg, so speaking German does not mean to be a German. Copernicus was born in Poland, educated in Poland and later in Italy not in any of the many German speaking kingdoms or duchies of that time. He was also loyal citizen of Poland in the wars against (German) Teutonic Order. Thus it is the German nationalist markup and German done edits war which set the inappropriate form of the article.--Huronton (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start by reading at least some of the vast amounts of pre-existing discussion on this. Try starting with the section just above, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read all of them and more. I make an effort to check, in first place, the value of all claims. Let me know what is incorrect in the article, where come from my news to springs. Let me know you arguments, why you say Copernicus is not Polish. As you can read German scientist do not say Copernicus is German -> see the last section of the article -Commemoration - Copernicium- . Well, at least some of the modern recognized German scientists say so. Let me know if any real German modern scientist argue that Copernicus is German. Please do not support yourself by some of old staff, the German imperialists and after especially the Germans Nazis make a lot of awful big lies and crimes around many Polish cultural achievements and scientists. The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia are just the continuations of the old imperialistic/nationalistic politic by the Nazi offsprings.--Huronton (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia are just the continuations of the old imperialistic/nationalistic politic by the Nazi offsprings - say no more guv, say no more. Indeed, if I were you, I'd retract that immeadiately. Nothing will go right for you if you don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GUV? - "if I were you, I'd retract that immeadiately. Nothing will go right for you if you don't" That is very politle :) And, well show you personality. It goes to board of Administrators and Jimmy Wales himself. I think you beleave you very powerfull, big and wise man... The Rouge admin. I think is the result of such thinking. Best regards :)--Huronton (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far Huronton you have given a lot of opinion with little supporting fact and committed two personal attacks on another editor (one here one on a talk page). I too suggest you think through your actions, retract the personal attacks, disengage and return with some more substantial references and a less accusatory approach. --BozMo talk 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TO: BozMo --- Would you point where the personal attack is. Did I name anybody personally Nazi offspring? NO! I expressed my personal opinion about the edit war sources – this is different thing. Secondly, the personal attack calling me 'guv' and attempting to frighten me... O! Come on! Are you rely have a sense of what is going on?--Huronton (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TO: BozMo --- Regarding opinion and facts. All what I wrote about Copernicus family etc. is in current version of the article. I am afraid people go to set editions without reading even the text of the article.--Huronton (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to sort out a few misconceptions: "Guv" is short for governor and is a polite term of casual respect not remotely a personal attack. However making comments about what people believe themselves to be [7] is clearly personal, attacking and not relevant to encyclopaedia content. I suggest language like "The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia " is also not constructive. --BozMo talk 08:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste your time. This is Serafin (talk · contribs) back with another sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and the sockpuppet is blocked. Would it be appropriate to collapse this section?Unfriend13 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priest and Canon

Galileo, in his letter to Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp refers to Copernicus as priest and canon. In Galileo's own words:

In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible (at least among the common people) to make this opinion seem new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform.

There should be a specific reference to his religious title and education particularly since there is a myth that he was an atheist. To perpetuate that myth by omission of his title is equivalent to lying about him. Unless it is the intent to lie.

The first sentence should be as such:

Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Polish: About this sound Mikołaj Kopernik (help·info); 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance mathematician, Roman Catholic priest, and astronomer who formulated a heliocentric model of the universe which placed the Sun, rather than the Earth, at the center.[a] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.1.113 (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up several times before (here, for example). To the best of my knowledge Edward Rosen's conclusion that Copernicus was not a priest is still accepted by contemporary historians of science as firmly established, and there is no current scholarly controversy over the issue. Even if there were, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view would preclude it from stating as a fact that Copernicus was a priest. Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina is a primary source, and cannot be regarded as a reliable source for the supposedly historical facts which it relates. Indeed, it has been shown (again by Edward Rosen) that this letter makes several other erroneous historical assertions besides the one that Copernicus was a priest.
I agree that the lead should probably say somewhere that Copernicus remained a canon in the Catholic church of Frombork throughout most of his working life.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David, I didn't have access to Rosen's earlier paper which I've now added to the article so I was more cautious in stating it. Chris55 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

significance of first name and what families with historic roots in that region think

significance of first name

His first name Nicolaus or Nikolaus is unmistakeably German language and culture related. Nicolaus was the patron of the Northern German merchants and cities. This is the reason why most principal churches are called Nikolai-Kirchen. So would any Polish family give her son the name Nicolaus? Poland at that time was a multi-ethnic conglomeration like Austria-Hungary. Not anyone in Austria-Hungary was German or Hungarian, the fact that Bohemia was always part of the Holy Empire doesn’t make Czech people German or Austrian either. It is important to note that Royal Prussia had a German speaking population, converted to Protestantism and supported return to Prussia at the time of the so called Polish partitions. My family lived in and around Bytow as long as there are church records, we have an unmistakeably Pomeranian slavic name and that doesn’t make us Polish. Poland expelled the population of the those territories from the former Royal Prussia and also Prussian Masurians who voted against Poland with 98%, those areas were never ethnic Polish, don’t confuse Slavic or Baltic with Polish. Polish are obsessed with Copernicus because they can’t stand that they were shifted westwards and live in territories that had a different population before. Istanbul is not Constantinople and Turkey once had a Greek Byzantine culture, however Turks like to deny that and claim some cultural succession that simply doesn’t exist. Royal Prussia had its distinctive culture, population and proper name, i.e. Prussia. Scotland isn’t England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.58.220.165 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Rheticus

"... in 1539 Georg Joachim Rheticus, a Wittenberg mathematician, ..." It is not correct to state that he was a "Wittenberg mathematician". Rheticus was born and grew up in Feldkirch, then part Further Austria and nowadays part of Austria. Feldkirch is about 700km south of Wittenberg. Ulrich Rainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.227.88 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

name listing

So why is the German name listed before the Polish? NE Ent 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One side in the 9 year old edit war was a tiny bit more persistent than the other? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=596227353"