Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 6

Page has been protected

Due to the ongoing dispute regarding this article, the page has been protected from editing for a period of one week. While this is not the preferred choice, it is a necessity due to the fact that there have been at least 14 reverts in the past 7 hours, all of which are related to the issue of nationality. Note that this is not an endorsement of any particular version of the page. Please resolve the issue as best you can on the talk page, and then ask me (or any other administrator) to reopen the page. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually considering requesting protection, but I guess that's not necessary now. At any rate, I second Ckatz's request to come to a consensus before making nationality/ethnicity changes on the page. It's clear there is disagreement, which means that discussion should come before change. --clpo13_(talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep it protected permanently, as the editwarring here is as old as Wikipedia, and will not cease. As stated numerous times before, the nationality/ethnicity is discussed for over 200 years, before, during and after two World Wars. The issue will not be settled and no compromise will be reached as long as some Poles, and the Polish state itself, desperately try to claim him as Polish - exclusively Polish, of course. Sadly, some sloppy and outdated sources echo these old claims, without stating their (lack of) reasoning. On the other hand, scholars like Norman Davies and Owen Gingerich, both honoured by Poland, do not make this mistake, yet acknowledge the Prussian/German aspects of his life. Apparently it was an Italian librarian who in the 1700s bragged about having seen a entry of Copernicus in records at Padua, which might have started the "Polish astronomer" hoax which was heavily promoted after the Polish state vanished in the 1790 (and thus any Polish citizenship, for over 100 years). It was shown in the 1870s that the librarian had lied, and that Copernicus in fact had signed into the German "natio" at Bologna. Yet, by that time, exiled Poles and Anti-German French had widely promoted the "Polish astronomer" (while beating the drums for a resurrection of a Polish state). Some Anglo-Saxons jumped on this bandwagon, and some are still on it, even in Wikipedia. Anyway, if Copernicus would be labeled Polish, as subject of the King of Poland, then all 19th century figures considered Polish (or Czech etc.) would have to be labeled Russian, Prussian, Austrian also, for consistency, as they were subjects of these monarchies. I doubt that a sane Pole would choose this option. Nevertheless, some want to have it both ways: call all subjects of the multi-cultural Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until 1795 Polish, and then call Polish-speaking subjects of other multi-cultural states Polish, too. See List of Poles, always an interesting read. Ray Manzarek of the Doors is listed there - should Robby Krieger be added to the list of Germans, accordingly, judging from the family name Krieger? -- Matthead  Discuß   23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a subtle difference between Copernicus in the 15th–16th centuries, and Poles in the 19th–early-20th centuries. Copernicus was a loyal citizen of Poland, and harbored no reservations concerning that citizenship; whereas the latter Poles had been saddled with foreign citizenships by their country's partitioners! Nihil novi (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus was a German-speaking citizen of the part of Prussia that seceded from the Order, and allied with the King, similar to Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact etc. to side with NATO and EU, without Poles becoming Northern-Atlantics or European-Unionists because of that. Besides, after WWI, the East Prussian plebiscite showed that over 90% of the population there were loyal Germans, even when being native speakers of Slavic languages related to Polish (Masurian, Kashubian). The results of the Upper Silesia plebiscite was also a shocking surprise to Polish nationalists who intensified their warmongering. Of course, in West Prussia and Posen, no plebiscites were held at all, these areas got annexed to Poland without any trace of democracy, the people there "had been saddled with foreign citizenships by their country's partitioners". Some do not learn from history, apparently. Danzig got no choice either. No wonder Poland expelled so many people in 1945, and held no free votes for decades - how many would choose a communist Poland by free will? -- Matthead  Discuß   01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthead for God's sake, ther eis no comparison between Poland allied with NATO and Prussia INCORPORATED into Polish king. Royal Prussia was just a province of Polish kingdom, with wide authonomy. Copernicus voewd loyalty to Polish king, not to Royal Prussia. Stop spreading this misinformation. As for Posen, there area went to Poland because of Polish uprising, carried without almost any preparations, by local population, without almost any coordination. Are you trying to imply that Poznan area would vote for Germany? And what has XX century with XV century? The concept of nationality itself changed drastically in the meantime. Also note that in XIX century in Masuria Germans themselves recorded majority of Poles, small minority of Masurians and only with each other population poll the number of Masurians steadily was rising. Szopen (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And also stop to repeat about signing into German natio, because it does not prove anything. Every Polish student signed at that time to German natio. This was not declaration of nationality, but student corporation. Initially it was called northern natio, but because most of students inside it were Germans, it got called "German natio". But Copernicus could not sign for "Polish natio" because at that time in Bologne there was no "Polish natio". Szopen (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well and accurately stated. Nihil novi (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At many universities Irish students were put in the German natio. These things don't function even by contemporary definitions of natio, just corporations usually named after the largest group of foreigners or the first group of foreigners of particular number, bearing in mind that "German", as well as meaning speaking German or being from the Kingdom of Germany, was also used loosely in Italy and France to refer to any ["northern"] foreigner. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Szopen wrote:

But Copernicus could not sign for "Polish natio" because at that time in Bologne there was no "Polish natio".

According to Koyré (The Astronomical Revolution, p.79), this is incorrect. Koyré lists the fourteen 'nations' at the University of Bologna as Gallic, Portuguese, Provençal, Burgundian, Savoyard, Aragonese, Navarrese, German, Hungarian, Polish, Bohemian and Flemish. Nevertheless, Koyré also says (p.21):

Although great importance has frequently been ascribed to this fact [viz. that Copernicus's name was inscribed on the Natio Germanorum register at Bologna], it does not by any means imply that Copernicus ever considered himself to be a German. The ‘nationes’ of a medieval university had nothing in common with nations in the modern sense of the word. Students who were natives of Prussia and Silesia were automatically described as belonging to the Natio Germanorum. Furthermore, at Bologna, this was the privileged 'nation'; consequently, Copernicus had very good reason for inscribing himself on its register.

and (p.20): "there is in fact no reason to suppose that Copernicus was not Polish. Furthermore, until the middle of the nineteenth century hardly anyone doubted it"—although he does acknowledge in a footnote that "Giordano Bruno, however, calls him 'German'."

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This in contradiction in what I read - in several books I read that Polish natio was established later, and before that Poles and Hungarians enlisted to German natio. Surely Polish natio existed in XVI century in Bologne;

Does Koyre wrote that Polish natio enlisted EXACTLY at time of Copernicus arriving in Bologne?

googling finds Karol Poznański "Historia Wychowania" who seems to support Koyre Szopen (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting find, but I guess Monsieur Koyre is a rather odd figure as Alexandre Koyré was suspicious of scientists' claims to be proving natural or fundamental truths through their experiments. Hmm. And I haven't mentioned yet that he hardly was pro-German, having his dissertation rejected by a German, then volunteering in WW1 for Russia etc. Regarding pre-1800 biographies, Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe has collected Biographies and Portraits of Copernicus from 16th to 18th century, Biographia Copernicana. [10], and so did Henryk Baranowski Bibliografia Kopernikowska 1509-1955. And to stress once again, in the days of old, he was described as Prussian (Prussus or Borussus). Szymon Starowolski wrote "Nicolaus Copernicus, Torunii in Prussia natus; patre Nicolao Copernico: matre vero, quae erat germana sonor Lucae a Watzelrod Toruniensis, Episcopi Varmiensis, praeclare de Repub. Polonorum meriti in causa Cruciferorum", in Scriptorum Polonicorum, 1627. A century later, a hoax from Padua connected him to Polish students there, and following the partitions, Polish and French authors claimed him as Pole for political reasons. It took some time until Germans defended him. We finally need an article to cover this old and important Copernicus controversy that even leads to edit wars here. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, what does "torunii in Prussia natus"? My latin is rather limited, by I think it means "inhabitant of Torun in Prussia", not "he is not Polish but Prussian". As for the rest, thank God we have now people like you, who finally will defend Copernicus.

BTW, just as an example that someone born in Thorn was not automatically "German": Johannes Abezier (look into German version, interesting information about to what natio he belonged in Prague).

However, I am quite sure that in Padua in his time there was Polish natio. He studied there. Which natio he choosed, Polish or German there? What's this "hoax" Matthead keeps talking about? Szopen (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Latin, you were almost right, buts its rather native than inhabitant of Thorn, and of Prussia. Once again, where are old records that call him Polonus, or native of Poland, or similar? Regarding the hoax, this is already well documented on Wikipedia, except in the Copernicus article, where it keeps dropping out somehow. A librarian in Padua in the 1720s had bragged about having seen Polish natio records, with an entry by Copernicus. This was seemingly believed for about 150 years until it was discovered as wrong (and at the same time, the actual German natio entry in Bologna was discovered). As a result, the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie of 1876 still echos these wrong believes - as does the Wikipedia article of 2008.

---

Leopold Prowe:

Carlo Malagola, who had discovered that Dominus Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn - IX grossetos had enrolled in 1496 for 9 Groschen in the Acta nationis Germanorum at Bologna, revealed that the librarian N. C. Papadopoli in Padua had falsely claimed in 1726 that he had seen an entry of Copernicus in the records of the "Polish nation" at the university. Yet, this claim had by then been widely published and "found a place in all subsequent biographies of Copernicus, but the decorative particulars added by the historian of the Patavian university have been shown to be wholly incorrect". and utterly baseless.

Nicolaus_Copernicus#Nationality_and_ethnicity:

Already in the 123-year period when no Polish state existed (see History of Poland, 1795–1918), the matter was debated in German writings; nevertheless, the 1875 Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie acknowledged the Polish aspects of Copernicus' life. Current German sources call the controversy, as reflected in the older literature, superfluous and shameful.

---

It is kind of strange that while the false "Polish natio" was apparently considered highly significant, the actual "German natio" is marginalized. For the first 200 years after his death, Copernicus was widely called a Prussian. Only in the 18th and 19th century, Polish claims where promoted, and rejected since. Scholars have stopped long time ago to attribute a nationality to him, and we should follow this example. Yet, in a separate article, we should cover the controversy on this question, which is notable, and still going on. Now we have the 21st century, Poland is member of NATO and EU and even Schengen, and the Polish government claims "Mikolaj Kopernik" as a Pole. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• One should at least always remember that Nicolaus Kopernicus (Kopernik) was a Pole and John Huss was a Chech. Henryk Sienkiewicz, So runs the World [11]

• By the criteria of his time Copernicus was a German, as his association with the German 'nation' among his fellow students at Padua University illustrates - Norman Lockyer, Nature Publishing Group, 1869

• There is, for instance, the spurious dispute as to whether Nicholas Copernicus was a Pole or a German. The documents available do not solve the problem. It is at any rate certain that Copernicus was educated in schools and universities whose only language was Latin, that he knew no other mathematical and astronomical books than those written in Latin or Greek, and that he himself wrote his treatises in Latin only. Ludwig Von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War, 1944 [12]

• It is inappropriate in a serious scholarly gathering such as this to descend to the polemical debate as to whether Copernicus was a German or a Pole. There has been intense heat and little light shed on this subject in the past. - Nicholas H. Steneck, Science and Society: Past, Present, and Future - 1975

It is remarkable, though, how the use of the phrase "Copernicus a German" by Polish authors has evolved from 1823 to 2003. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the questions stays: what nation did he enrolled while at Padua? As for "Niccolo Kopperlingk" it seems quite strange, almost funny - it seems unlikely that Copernicus whould sign like this (He always signed as Nicolaus Coppernicus). For me, he was as German as Pole. Szopen (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, it is unknown where he enrolled in Padua, no records with him exist, unlike in Bologna. Why do you assume that he signed, or was recorded, with the mixed Italian-German name above? The records [13] say that the money was "A Domino Nicolao Kopperlingk", meaning "from Mister NK", in Ablative case. Same for the other folks mentioned there, like "A domino Jacobo the lansperg argentinensis diocesis". If that student would have become famous, would the French claim him as Jacques Lanspergue?-- Matthead  Discuß   19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Surely the behaviour is not limited to Poles. Germans claimed for example Chodowiecki, and even now article insists on calling him Polish-German painter, despite showing sources that he himself considered himself Polish. Simply I doubt that "kopperlingk" since Kopernik signed always "Coppernicus", "Copernicus", "Coppernic", never "Copperlingkus" or "Copperlinkus". "Dominus Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn" seems just strange. "Koppernigk" I would believe. But "Kopperlingk" seems fake.

However: http://www.essortment.com/all/nicolauscoperni_rnvx.htm

"an associate of Luther [ Phillip Melanchton] voiced his opinion of Copernicus: "Some believe that to expound such an absurd matter, as :that Sarmatian [Polish] astronomer has done, who would move the Earth and stop the Sun is an excellent thing. :Verily, wise governors should curb such talented rashness.". Surely, it seems that if Copernicus theory would be false, Germans would happily pronounce him Polish.

Is the "Kopperlingk" signature in Copernicus' identifiable hand? Maybe it was written by some clerk rather than by the astronomer? Bureaucrats often make errors. Nihil novi (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus theory is false, he built it on circles (orbium), which yields imprecise results, and thus it is no big improvement for those astronomers who are interested in precise data, rather than philosophical questions like what is the center of the universe (which could have not been decided yet by observations). Only Kepler later got it right, qualitative (ellipses) and quantitative, with Keplers laws. During Copernicus' lifetime, reformation was raging on, and he was affected, as Prussia (both) adopted Protestantism. Lutherans fully relied on the bible, thus a Catholic cleric like Copernicus who seemingly contradicted the bible was highly suspicious. His employer, the Roman church, had no problem with a heliocentric theory (yet), being less dependend on the bible, but in need of a calender reform. Being surrounded by Lutherans, Copernicus was ridiculed also by a theater play in Elbing, which made him hesitate to publish so long. And as almost all Prussians had become Lutherans, leading reformers did hesitate to just call him Prussian, too (just like certain users would hardly describe me Matthead, the Wikipedian editor). I was this interaction with (fellow) Germans, many encouraging and supporting him, others criticizing and trying to isolate him (Osiander even censored his book), what made him both delay and improve his work. And it is also this interaction with other Germans which makes him "German", for sure an important figure in an important time of change (revolution) in Germany. For Copernicus, Poland and Poles were only a part of the political or fiscal aspects of his life (yes, I know, Poles consider his closure of the gates of Allenstein as fighting a major battle), while in scientific and theological matters, he interacted almost exclusively with people in/from Italy and Germany. And it is from Italy where we have that German natio record entry from, when he was still young, thus saying more about his family background than later records. While modern names are fixed shortly after birth, he and others still could change names, just like we can alter our signatures and email adresses. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When preparing monetary reform, he however advocated accpepting of the POlish monetary system (which was adopted by Royal Prussia in 1528, following the reform in the Crown in 1526). Of course he also criticised part of Polish reform. He proposed money with Polish eagle from one side, and Prussian coat of arms from second side in Prussia, and with Polish eagle from one side, and Hohenzollern eagle from second side in Ducal Prussia. In political and fiscal matters he interacted a lot with Poland and Poles. His first poem was dedicated to Polish king. He cooperated with Bernard Wapowski when creating map of POlish crown. He travelled a lot to Poznań, Piotrków, Cracow, Vilnius.

About language, Polish wikipedia gives nice example of Dabrowski (you know, the guy from Polish national anthem) who to his death never learned correct Polish and when speaking with Poniatowski was using German -- nevertheless, it's hard to call Dabrowski anything else than true Polish patriot. He has Polish relatives (families of Konopaccy, Działyńscy, Kostka - though e.g. Działyńscy, recent newcomers from Greater Poland, while speaking Polish considered themselves Prussians).

Szopen asked:

Does Koyre wrote that Polish natio enlisted EXACTLY at time of Copernicus arriving in Bologne?

He doesn't say explicitly that the Polish natio was in existence at the time when Copernicus was at Bologna. However, it would have been very remiss of him to cite the list of nations in the way he did unless he had very good reasons for believing that it was. Nevertheless, just to make sure, I have now consulted the source Koyré cited, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Vol I, by Hastings Rashdall. Rashdall says (p.156) that in 1265 there were 14 ultramontane 'nations' at the University of Bologna and gives the list which Koyré used. Further on (p.183) Rashdall says that in 1432 there were 16 ultramontane 'nations', still including both the German and the Polish. Since he appears to have obtained his information from primary sources, there doesn't appear to me to be much doubt that there was a Polish 'nation' at Bologna during the same period when Copernicus was.

—David Wilson (talk · cont)

I stand corrected. I consulted the book by Centkiewicz "Rzeczpospolite uczonych..." , in which he states "similarly as other Poles he joined German natio, called also English natio...". It seems that I falsely jumped to conclusion that there was no POlish natio in Bologna. Indeed, the Centkiewicz sentence clearly suggested to me this fact; but Centkiewicz didn't use the word "all Poles", only suggested that. Szopen (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Dispute Resolution

Unless we can resolve the nationality/ethnicity issue on this talk page, I propose requesting a formal mediation as outlined in WP:DR.

First, because the neutrality of the lead paragraph is disputed, I’m putting a POV message at the top of the article (I’m not changing any content at this time in a good faith effort to resolve this issue, even though I believe that the lead paragraph is incorrect).

I’m putting forth my reasons, to be used in a dispute resolution, unless we can resolve them on this talk page, as to why Copernicus should be identified as being Polish in the first paragraph. I also discuss a possible change in the "Nationality and ethnicity" section.

1) Difference between Nationality and Ethnicity

When a person is identified as American or Brazilian (in the English Wikipedia and most other sources), it usually means that he/she is/was a citizen of that country. As I’ve noted previously, see the following examples: Eduard von Simson (German nationality, Jewish ethnicity); Carlos Slim (Mexican nationality, Lebanese ethnicity); Lucy Liu (American nationality; Chinese ethnicity)).

Because Copernicus was born in Poland, died in Poland, and fought for Poland (per the article, "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."), he was a Polish national.

2) The Neutral Point of View

Per the WP:NPOV, “All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.”

Majority viewpoint: The most reliable and significant sources, representing the majority viewpoint, state that Copernicus was a Polish national. These include the International Astronomical Union, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Encarta, and Encyclopedia Americana.

Minority viewpoint: The minority viewpoint is that Copernicus’s nationality is uncertain and some significant minority viewpoints do not label him as Polish, but rather omit his nationality, such as the German Encylopedia Brockhaus.

The tiny-minority viewpoint is that Copernicus was a German national.

3) Proposed Changes

There is no dispute about his ethnicity, because it is uncertain. However, while his nationality was debated in the past, the majority viewpoint today is that he was a Polish national. As far as I know, his nationality is not being debated today in any reputable scientific or “historical” circles today (for example, per the article, “Current German sources call the controversy, as reflected in the older literature, superfluous and shameful.”). However, because there is a minority viewpoint (and not a fringe viewpoint) that does not identify Copernicus as a Polish national, I believe that the section “Nationality and Ethnicity” is correct as it written now, although I would tend to lean more toward the previous version of the first paragraph, “his ethnicity is uncertain” (and not “his nationality and ethnicity is uncertain”), because while his nationality was disputed in the past, the majority viewpoint today is that he was Polish (note that both majority and minority viewpoints about his nationality are discussed in detail in this section).

However, the article correctly states that he is “generally regarded as Polish”. Again, this is the majority viewpoint and the neutral point of view.

Thus, Copernicus should be labeled as “a Polish astronomer” in the first paragraph.

Thanks, and I’d appreciate other views, whether supportive or not, that we can put forth before a formal mediation. Astronomer28 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I first expressed myself on this issue, several times, in the entry #Shame on you above. Before anyone commences any type of formal dispute resolution, I suggest that they carefully study the LONG history of this dispute, including the article's block logs, which document several blocks because of edit warring on this issue. Forgive me for repeating what I said above in #Dispute resolution in response to a prior suggestion of mediation.

• 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)

Before commencing any form of dispute resolution, I suggest adding many more English language reliable sources on Copernicus's nationality: other encyclopedias, science histories, and biographies. Further, the dispute to be resolved should not be confined to identifying nationality in the lead and the infobox. It should also extend to the "Nationality and ethnicity" section. That section violates WP:NPOV, particularly in its first sentence, by giving undue weight to the alleged dispute. No other standard reference work of which I am aware even acknowledges the existence of a dispute over Copernicus's nationality, let alone devotes significant space to it. Therefore, this section should be reduced to perhaps 12 lines, with appropriate mention of the minority claim of German nationality supported by reliable sources. Also, the article is punctuated with other material that has no place in an article on Copernicus, but is in this article solely to bolster arguments favoring German or Polish nationality; these should be addressed in the dispute resolution process as well. I still believe that mediation would be hopeless. If there is to be resort to formal dispute resolution, it should be directly to WP:ARB. Finell (Talk) 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Polish astronomer" case is lost, no matter how relentlessly it is pushed by a few, clinching to outdated and/or sloppy encyclopedias or other less than reliable sources. Insisting on prominently mentioning "Polish" based on alleged "citizenship" is misleading. If anything, his citizenship was "Borussus" or "Torinensis", he was described as such (but never "Polonus"!) for a quarter of a millenium, before the "Polish natio" hoax was promoted by 19th century Polish nationalists in exile. In similar fashion, the categories for Franz Kafka and Elias Canetti currently hide the fact that they became famous for writing in German, while insinuating they wrote in Slavic languages. Same for Copernicus, who undisputedly wrote in Latin and German, but not Polish. This language was first printed as late as 1513 anyway, when Copernicus was 40, see Hortulus Animae. Printing is one of the cultural achievements brought to Poland - actually to multi-cultural cities like Cracow - by Germans. Copernicus has mainly cooperated with German astronomers - as he was one of them. He used astronomical data gathered in Nuremberg, and then published there, thus could be described as a "Franconian astronomer by choice". Anyway, there were barely any "Category:Polish astronomers" worth mentioning for a long time before, during, and after Copernicus life time. Brudzewo was one of many who lectured based on Peurbachs works, Lubieniecki was a part-time illustrator of comets while in German exile, Sylvius made instruments abroad in Europe, while Hevelius is a very similar case: a native German speaker who is claimed by Poles based on some vague "citizenship". So, is it the policy of Wikipedia to give in to nationalists who, due to shortage of home-grown celebrities, try to "abduct" some from abroad to boost national pride? I guess some official arbitration could be helpful to stop them, and to revert what they have achieved. Did I mention the List of Poles yet? -- Matthead  Discuß   03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, if you would for a second step outside your nationalist circle, you would notice that first Polish language print appeared in 1475 actually - but those were three single prayers. And it was in Glogow (Glogau) in Lower Silesia, at that time predominantly POlish. In kingdom of Poland, irst printed work was by German Straube, but first printing house was founded by Turzon, which was not German BTW. Similarly, Copernicus was called Polish astronomer long time BEFORE XIX century. If you would want to describe him as "Prussian" that's fine, but "Prussian" in times of Copernicus was not equal to "German". Szopen (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can list 1,000 English language encyclopedias - it doesn't change the fact that the German or Polish question is not cut and dry. To avoid controversy, Anglophone editors decide "well it's in Poland today, so let's call him Polish" and in one fell swoop 800+ years of history and complexity is swept under the carpet as if it had never existed.

My personal opinion is that he is both and neither nationality/ethnicity. I think the article is just fine as it is. It says that his nationality is uncertain in modern terms. It may not please nationalists or propagandists, but it is true.Udibi (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Nicolaus Copernicus was called Polish astronomer by some since in 1726 Nicolai Papadopoli- Nicolaus Papadopolus of Italy published a sloppy book about a university [14] where Papadopoli claims to have seen (or have been told of) the Copernicus entry in the Natio Polonia It is known that the 'Natio Polonia' did not exist at that time. However this and many other "sloppy, fraudulent facts" by Papadopoli were exposed by Carlo Malagola (books: [15]) and by others. But just like Wikipedia mirrors fraudulent or false statements and multiplies them hundredfolds, "this fraudulent fact of Copernicus at Natio Polonia" just does not go away, even after more of a hundred years of exposure. How dangerous it can be in 'overlooking or not paying enough attention to detailed facts' and 'going along with propaganda, or giving in to harrassment, even when the truth is out there' (to make it NPOV) can be seen in the masses going along with the statements of "weapons of mass 'deception'". MfG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

All of you, please, please, PLEASE don't renew this debate. It is useless and hopeless. No one will convince the other side of anything, and those who might agree with you that C is German or Polish or neither already agree with you. So just stop the argument, PLEASE. If you wish to bolster your argument for any position on nationality or ethnicity, and do something productive with your time and energy, bolster the article's "Nationality and ethnicity" section with additional reliable sources in support of your position. Don't limit yourself to online sources: go to the library and add reputable print sources. Don't assume that others will immediately see that your particular position correct. Then you will be in better position to prevail in any form of dispute resolution or peer review that may occur. That is the way to put an end to this years-long dispute and edit war. Once the nationality issue is settled by a much broader consensus than the present combatants, productive work to improve the article and someday reach WP:FA can go forward. Copernicus deserves much better than what this article has to say about him. Finell (Talk) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment made by a sockpuppet of a banned user. It has been hidden per WP:BAN. --wL<speak·check> 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If conversations between you and anyone else hadn't invariably turned into accusations by you of bad faith and of other bad motives, perhaps you wouldn't be banned also from this wikipedia - and, of course, but for your sockpuppetry. I think it's ironic using the term nationalism while trying to make a famous person part of one's own nation. Nobody (sane) nowadays thinks Germany has any rights to parts of Poland. Unless Finell disagrees again, I'd like comments in the future, in particular such personal attacks, of User:Serafin be removed from this page, as per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If the admins determine that 64.7.140.82 (talk · contribs) is a banned user or a banned user's sockpuppet, I have no objection to deleting his or her posts. Otherwise, I will object, and will take action if the post is deleted without such a determination, as I have done before. I STILL believe that continuing this argument, by all sides, is pointless. Likewise, simply restoring "Polish" to the lead is pointless, because it will just be reverted by someone who disagrees. Finell (Talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see no point in debating the issue - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. If sources like Britannica state Copernicus nationality as Polish, thus it should be stated here as well. His ethnicity however should be covered in a separate section. Dawidbernard (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Elegant compromise: Prussian astronomer

Other sources (see older discussions) say he was German. Therefore I think a good compromise would be to say he was a Prussian. Copernicus was born in Prussia, lived in Prussia, died in Prussia, fought for Prussia, and identified himself as Prussian. At his lifetime he was repeatedly called "Borussus mathematicus" (=Prussian mathematician). Therefore he should be correctly described as a Prussian national, pure and simple. It is the perfect compromise, and the most accurate description. Any thoughts? Der Eberswalder (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a compromise. Finell (Talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But Prussian in times of Copernicus meant something different than in our times. That's why it would only create other controversies and would not end endless quarelling. Szopen (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, you mean the term "Prussian" is in most people's minds still identified with the huge state of Prussia instead of the tiny region of Prussia? If so, then we have to find a workaround to avoid such a misunderstanding. Perhaps by putting Poland and Prussia (region) into the same first sentence? Or perhaps using formulation similar to other Wikipedia examples like:

• Reinhold Messner (born September 17, 1944) is a mountaineer and explorer from South Tyrol in Italy, often cited as the greatest mountain climber of all time. (NC was an ... from Royal Prussia in Poland) or
  
• Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла) (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was an inventor, physicist, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. Born in Smiljan, Croatian Krajina, Military Frontier he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen. (NC was ... Born in Thorn, Royal Prussia he was an ethnic German subject of the King of Poland) or
  
• keeping it as it is, without initial adjective, and elaborating further down in the article, as it is now the case or
• does anybody has another idea?
   ::Der Eberswalder (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"From Prussia in Poland" - well, I wouldn't object to that. Szopen (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses current terminology and understanding for nationality, as it does for most everything. According to Wikipedia, and to all scholars today, Leonardo da Vinci's nationality was Italian, even though there was no such thing as Italy when Leonardo lived, and Leonardo never would have thought of himself as a Italian. Today, saying Prussian nationality would connote German. That is not a compromise. That is a POV that is contrary to substantially all scholarship on Copernicus. Finell (Talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Nihil novi (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Da Vinci is undisputed, Copernicus is disputed. Therefore I tried to find similarly complicated examples, like those of Nicola Tesla or Reinhold Messner, to have something which we could use for consensus finding. Do you have another example? Der Eberswalder (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, there are already a few more examples: Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Ethnic_feuds 79.97.2.243 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Finell, all scholarship on Copernicus agrees that he was most probably an ethnic German, so Prussian would be correct and NPOV. But I do not insist on that. And I agree with you that any formulation has to make clear that Prussia (region) is meant and not Prussia. 79.97.2.243 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hasn't this argument been going on for 6 months or more? Instead of both sides trying to get content in that others object to, why not just say he spoke German & lived in an area now part of Poland? --JimWae (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Answer to first question: More, much more. Answer to second question: No. Finell (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To the second part: why not? And seriously, if you tell me to "look in the archives"... --clpo13_(talk) 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he also spoke Latin and likely Italian and Polish. Nihil novi (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So language is a poor way to judge nationality. But shooting down compromise suggestions without much explanation is a poor way to resolve this. Personally, I don't think it matters what Copernicus was. It's not that important compared to the scientific contributions he made. But that's just me. --clpo13_(talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but this needs to be resolved somehow, or else this issue will resurface again and again. Der Eberswalder (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• So then list ALL the languages he spoke - remarking on what his FIRST language (if known) was -- & if he spoke or merely wrote Latin --JimWae (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Intermediate status of consensus finding:
It seems that the formulation similar to the Reinhold Messner article NC was an ... from Royal Prussia in Poland has the potential to become a consensus. Is that an accurate assumption? Der Eberswalder (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Because there always be German nationalist who will remove "in Poland" part and Polish nationalist who will insert "Polish" or remove "Royal Prussia". But I would support that version. Szopen (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we will see what happens when this version is put in. :) Der Eberswalder (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

This entire talk page is really only about Copernicus's nationality. And it really seems to get some people's tempers up. While when we look at his life, the fact is not really of great importance. His achievments are what the article should concentrate on. It really is quite impossible to say now, who Copernicus was in terms of nationality. I think defining him as coming from Torun/Thorn is quite enough. Anyone can look up the city and see that like many in this part of Europe it has changed hands quite often. And as far as linking, it's quite ok to link him both under notable Poles and notable Germans, that will just help people looking through these sites to find the article. Quite frankly, being a Pole myself, I can;t stand these endless discussions on Copernicus and on the more recent Marie Curie-Sklodowska. I know this country has had precious little notable names to date, despite it's size, but insted of writing endless fights on these two topics, I think we should rather try to change that fact at least nowadays. Face the truth guys (a little off topic to Poles) our universities still stink, in eighteen years since communism we managed to zero western standard universities and tones of impresive western standard shopping malls... this route will not lead us to more notable names :D . Many people choose other countries and take other nationalities to do their science works (like Sklodowska did) and we keep fussing over these two notable names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.66.254 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Point well made

As polymath but also as a person of faith, Kopernik/Copernicus would have thought of himself as catholic/Catholic, hence universal, although I imagine he felt most at home in scholarly and ecclesiastical circles where Latin was the common tongue. His vision of the universe and of human society was much vaster than that of many people today. If I may add a word of consolation to the Polish author of the above (I who am of American nationality, Polish/Huguenot ethnicity, and musician/historian by education), today's Poland is broadening its sense of belonging (e.g., EU membership), and while its universities may not yet meet the highest western standards, Poland has had and continues to have a rich musical life, which is still making a widely-esteemed contribution to western and world culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido arretinus (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is "nationality" - it ethnicity. And, if it’s not your history being stolen, why would you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection proposed

Considering the amount of controversial edits made by anonymous or newly registered editors, some of whom are likely socks, I'd suggest applying WP:SEMI to this page. Any comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nihil novi (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected since 23:51, 26 March 2008, at my request. We do not want full protection because that makes progress on other aspects of the article impossible. Finell (Talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I want full protection, as this is the only way to stop this "was POLISH" vandalism. We can work on a dummy article, e.g Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/draft, and when consensus is reached, ask an admin to edit the real article accordingly. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, everybody happy watching (or taking part in) editwars? -- Matthead  Discuß   23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "comprise"

A recent edit had replaced the text "the urban elites of Royal Prussia comprised German-speaking burghers" with "the urban elites of Royal Prussia were comprised of German-speaking burghers". Since the latter form is still widely regarded as incorrect usage, I have reverted it back to the former, which is (as far as I can tell) universally considered correct by all authoritative sources on Enlish usage. The World Health Oranisation's English Style Guide, for instance, says "comprised of" is "incorrect", The Guardian Style Guide says it's "wrong", and The Economist's Style Guide lists it under "common solecisms".

While the on-line American English style guides, the Columbia Guide to Standard American Enlish Usage and The American Heritage® Book of English Usage, are less prescriptive, they also acknowledge that "comprised of" is widely regarded as incorrect.

It therefore seems to me that if the verb "comprise" is going to be used at all in the article, then it should be used in a form which is universally regarded as correct, rather than one which is still widely considered dubious. An alternative would be to replace it with a perhaps less contentious synonym: "the urban elites of Royal Prussia consisted of German-speaking burghers" —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The chief advantage of "comprised," when used correctly, is its succinctness: 1 word instead of 2, and — in the past tense, at least — 2 syllables instead of the 4 in "consisted of." An encyclopedia should be succinct, precise, clear and unequivocal. Nihil novi (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Nicolaus Copernicus, students and burghers of Cracow

History of Kraków at the time of Nicolaus Copernicus. Cracow, established and rebuilt since 1257 with Magdeburg rights self government, had become a Hanseatic city with German-language burghers and city guild government, where many Germans established new businesses. Such was the situation when, Copernicus studied in Cracow, because his sister, married to Bertel Gartner lived in Crakow and one of Copernicus' grandfathers and uncles had moved businesses to several Hanseatic cities. In 1502 Conrad Celtes named [16]Cracow as one of four cities in Germany.

13 April 2008

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.201.57 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cracow was not "established" or "rebuilt" in 1257. It get new set set of rights. Quoting Celtus to prove Cracow was not Polish city is laughable. Similarly I could quote CNN to prove that Poland is bordering with Switzerland (or was it Slovenia?) Szopen (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Cracow founded in 1257 You may want to read up a little more on history. A number of book state Cracow was founded in 1257 [17] 14 April 2008

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.201.57 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If cCracow was founded in 1257, then what was sieged by Mongols in 1241? Or, for that matter, what meant "Cracow" mentioned as early as X century? Cracow was not found in 1257. In 1257 it got new set of rights. Szopen (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointless

The pointless debate about Copernicus's nationality should be banned. Note that he was in the German Nation at university in Italy. See the MacTutor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality tag

It is laughable to quote Celtus to show that Cracow was a German city. At the time (around 1500) Cracow was the capital of Poland and the main residence of the King of Poland and had been for 400 years. Note that Celtus also states that Bohemia is the center of Germany. Prague was for a time the residence of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, starting with Charles IV Hapsburg who made Prague his capital (he had inherited Bohemia as well as Luxembourg). Is that sufficient reason to call the Czech Republic part of Germany?

I note that as it presently stands, the Copernicus article is totally neutral, quoting all sources. This should be sufficient to withdraw the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag., and block further changes.

Syrenab (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The article overemphasizes the question of his nationality, which none of the major encyclopedias, reference works, or biographies even recognize as an issue. It is analogous to saying that an article on cosmology (I do not mean one on the history of cosmology) is neutral if it gives equal weight to the currently accepted science and the Ptolemaic system. Further, the article overemphasizes surrounding historical events that did not directly involve Copernicus, but are over-represented in the article to bolster someone's case that he is Polish or German or Prussian. As a result of all the editorial energy devoted to this non-issue, the real content of the article suffers from neglect. If editors devoted themselves to researching and citing the most widely respected sources on Copernicus's nationality, instead of just shouting and one another, this non-issue would disappear and the article would state his nationality, like it does for practically every other historical figure. (Would who ever keeps making quickly reverted edits with the comment "COPERNICUS was POLISH" please go to the library, come back with 20 sources to support that statement, and cite them in the article?) That would be neutral. What we have now is not neutral because it does not accurately represent the weight of scholarly authority; what we have now is POV pushing, and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you (Finall) are referring to the last section of the article "Nationality and ethnicity", I agree that this section is unnecessary and would best be deleted, or perhaps made a completely separate article. As it stands it is of little importance and detracts from the overall article.

The rest of the article is all totally factual and based on documented facts. I find nothing that needs to be eliminated.

What do we need to do to eliminate the last section, delete the tag from the head of the article, and get on with more important work?

Syrenab (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We disagree. The Nationality section is a mess and needs to be rewritten and drastically shortened, to correspond to the extent of the alleged dispute over Copernicus's nationality. Extraneous history of Poland and Prussia also does not belong in this article, but it is put there by editors seeking to amass evidence to support their respective positions that Copernicus was German or Polish. Once this dispute is resolved, this matter can be cleaned out. The Neutrality tag stays so long as the neutrality of the article is in dispute. Finell (Talk) 07:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I recommend to follow the example of the Polish Wikipedia and remove the last section "Nationality and ethnicity" from the main Copernicus article and make it a separate article. As it stands now, this section is of little importance and detracts from the overall article about one of the great scientists of the world.

The rest of the article is all totally factual and based on documented facts. I find nothing that needs to be eliminated.

Will the Administrator eliminate this last section, then delete the tag from the head of the article and place a block to prevent further fruitless discussions, which will never be resolved to everybody's satisfaction?

I would like to remind everyone, that in the times under discussion, rulers (kings, princes, dukes, bishops) determined boundaries of states by force of arms and treated provinces as if they were personal property, passing them on to sons or giving them away as dowries. Nationality, as such, was of secondary importance. Most literature, especially scientific, was written in Latin. We have no way of knowing for sure what language was spoken by Copernicus. Certainly at the university, whether in Cracow or later Bologna, studies were in Latin. At home it is likely that a Germanic dialect was used as well as a Polish dialect (the latter being the language of the bulk of people residing in the regions of Torun and Cracow). Incidentally, today most Irish people speak English, but become very offended if someone calls them English!

The French Wikipedia handles the matter very well, IMHO. It states "...since the 19thC the nationality of Copernicus has become a subject of controversy. Today he is generally considered Polish, in part because of his place of birth and his origins. Nevertheless, nationality plays a secondary role and, in reality, Copernicus should be considered as being German and Polish at the same time."

Syrenab (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nationality section does not warrant a separate article; it does not warrant as much space as it has now. Further, because it directly affects the rest of the article (why a nationality is or is not stated for Copernicus), removing it to a separate article would be an impermissible WP:FORK. Even it were made a separate article, Wikipedia policy requires that the separate article be fairly summarized in the main Copernicus bio. Finally, admins do not dictate article content. Article content is decided by the consensus of editors who work on an article. Admins, when they act as such, enforce Wikipedia standards of behavior and policies, such as the policy that requires editing by consensus and not permitting an editor to remove a controversy tag until the controversy is resolved. Finell (Talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with your suggestion, I have revised the entire "Nationality" section. Hopefully this will take care of the matter, and the Tag may be removed from the beginning of the article.

However I still think that at least a partial block should be kept on this aryicle. I note that again yesterday "Polish" has been added to the first paragraph, and again reverted. What a waste of time for all concerned!!

Syrenab (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested references and sources have been added to the re-written Nationality and ethnicity and I believe that the Tag should be removed. Furthermore, all other sections of this article have had all POV matter removed, leaving onlky fully documented subject matter. Therefore I think that the Tag at the head of the article should also be removed.

Syrenab (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the statements in the Nationality section are still unsourced and also controversial. Furthermore, a wikilink cannot be a source. A list of treaties is not sufficient to make a statement about what was happening where Copernicus lived when he lived there. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS for guidance. Also, the Family section says (with a citation and quote) that Toruń was "in the Royal Prussia region of the Kingdom of Poland". The the Nationality section says (with no citation) that Copernicus "spent most of his life in the C", which seems to contradict statement in the Family section. Finell (Talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only trying to comply with your request for sources. OK, I'll find another list of examples to show that boundaries of provinces changed frequently as a result of various events.

Wikipedia's policy against original research prohibits us from drawing a new conclusion from raw data. The article cannot say, in substance, that nationality was unimportant in Copernicus's day because of rapidly changing borders without citation of a reliable source who reaches that conclusion based upon that reason. By the way, there is no shortage of sources who identify Copernicus's nationality and the nationality of others Europeans of the same era, so the conclusion itself is dubious. The only reason this article does not identify Copernicus's nationality is because of edit warring. Finell (Talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection - "Royal Prussia region of the Kingdom of Poland" is exactly the same as "the Polish province of Royal Prussia". just using different words, so you are nit-picking.

I am not trying to nit-pick. The first statement says Royal Prussia is part of Poland. The second statement says Poland is part of Royal Prussia. The two statements say the opposite. Which was the whole and which was the part? Finell (Talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What else is controversial? Please tell me specifically and I'll try to correct or find sources.

It is all controversial, given this article's edit history. I will put tags in the section where citations are needed and remove citations that do not support the statements made. Finell (Talk) 22:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Syrenab (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Finell, I had not noticed that someone else had inserted the "of" between Province and Royal Prussia, after I had written this sentence. I have corrected that. Where available, I have inserted references for EVERY sentence as you requested (including reverting non-wiki references that you had DELETED) and deleted all other sentences for which I don't have available references. BTW, I am surprised that you seem to think that it is impermissible to write a single sentence without providing a reference. I don't find this to be the requirement in any other article in Wikipedia, English, German, French or Polish.

That's it for me. I tried, in good faith, to provide a resolution of this matter in a simple NPOV manner. I have no more time to spend on this subject.

Syrenab (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

... and yet another good faith editor is driven away from this article, while I had chosen to wait and see how things will be going without me interfering. Same business as usual, the relentless COPERNICUS was POLISH pushing of course. Apart from that, deleting a 9 Kilobytes of text and sources, then sticking 10 fact tags into the carcass did not help either, I have to say.

The proposal made at the beginning of this section is not new, yet IMHO still good, but it was rejected several times by the "community". English and German wikipedias once had separate articles to cover the pesky nationality issue (there's still Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality), but both Copernicus' nationality (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernicus' nationality in Nov 2005, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernicus' nationality (second nomination) in Jan 2006) and de:Nationalität von Kopernikus (in March 2006) were deleted two years ago. German content was later retrieved and stored at de:Benutzer:Plehn/Nationalität von Kopernikus. Polish Wiki has pl:Kwestia narodowości Kopernika since 2005. While maybe his nationality alone itself does not merit an article, I'd say that the 200+ year old dispute outside of wikipedia, and now also several years within, is old and notable enough to be wrapped up in an article (again). Wikipedia has dozen of articles covering a controversy (like the eye-popping Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, but does not yet cover the (astronomical) Copernican controversy which has 383 Google books hits. Wikipedia really has it priorities sorted well here - not! Google Books have also over 40 hits for Copernicus controversy nationality which should be enough to source the fact that his nationality was and is controversial. Guess when this was written: "Germany is not perhaps the most suitable occasion for reviving an ancient controversy as to his nationality, and though Copernicus was born at Thorn, the troubled history of that corner of Europe makes it difficult to speak with any certainty about his ancestry". It was in the very first year of Nature (journal), in 1869. [18] [19]. BTW, one has to point out that the author, Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer, an English scientist and astronomer, speaks about Germany in 1869 even though some Wiki editors insist there was no such thing as a Germany before 1871. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Would an admin please restore the last uncompromised version, with 54,245 bytes (compared to the current 46k fragment), and then full protect it to keep our dear COPERNICUS was POLISH friend away? Thanks in advance! -- Matthead  Discuß   23:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that all the stuff about TV satellites, banknotes and King Ludwig I of Bavaria is particularly contributory to this question. Nihil novi (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But mentioning Poland or Polish about 18 times, including "Polish 10-złoty coins", is particularly contributory to this question? Compared to this are 3 mentions of German, and 10 of Prussia(n) (all in the main article, without the sections Notes and below). The political connection of Prussia to the Polish King is totally overrepresented, e.g. compared to the more complicated life of Leonardo da Vinci. His places of birth and death are given as "present-day Italy" and "present-day France", while for Copernicus, the contemporary names Thorn and Frauenburg are only in parentheses, and the modern day Polish names, unfamiliar to Copernicus, are highlighted. To become neutral, the frequent mentioning of Polish/Poland and the gratuitous name dropping of present day city names in Polish needs to be cut down. Why not pointing out, for a change, that he was born in Thorn, studied in Cracow, lived in Allenstein, Heilsberg, Mehlsack, Frauenburg, and communicated in German with the Duke of Prussia in Königsberg, the former Teutonic Knight and "enemy"? Polish POV and vanity has skewed this article for too long. For example, the info box has 10(!) entries in Fields, among them military commander, which is ridiculous, not only compared to da Vinci. The Jagiellonian University is listed - it was called Cracow Academy for centuries to come, and he did not earn any degree there anyway. Academically of low significance, but highly important to Polish national pride. -- Matthead  Discuß   06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You will please note that the banknote that I referred to was a Polish banknote. And I think that not only Polish historians will differ with your assessment of Kraków University, the second oldest university in Central Europe and one of the oldest in Europe, and founded before any German university, as "academically of low significance." Nevertheless, many Polish scholars have also studied abroad, in Copernicus' time and since, often at German universities (though Copernicus himself did not study at a German university).

Copernicus also did not receive a degree at Bologna or Padua Universities. He obtained his doctorate (in law) at Ferrara. Nihil novi (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No degree in Bologna? Magister, 18 June 1499. It was at Bologna were he learned most of law and astronomy, and where he in 1496 was signed in as Dominus Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn in the German natio (a fact that keeps dropping out of the article). He did not graduate after his additional studies of medicine in Padua (old reports [20] about a doctorate there were, like the Polish natio, based on the Papadopoli tall tale), but then practised medicine for the benefit of his compatriots, which is arguably better than getting maltreated by someone with M.D.. And apparently, Marcin Kromer described him in 1581 as artiae et medicinae doctor anyway. To repeat it again: compared to his Italian studies, the early ones in Cracow were "academically of low significance." Thanks for proving my point regarding Polish pride, though. I'm not going to discuss the Austrian history of the Cracow Academy (Universität Krakau), the latter name gratuitously added with greetings to our Krolewiec-disseminating friend. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your source concerning Copernicus' alleged Bologna "Magister, 18 June 1499" refers to "a document executed on June 18, 1499, by the... Bolognese notary, Girolamo Belvisi, in the presence of Copernicus as a witness. In this... document the notary called Copernicus magister..." That is not incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a master's degree. But if you do find actual documentation of a master's degree, please add it to the Wikipedia article.

Angus Armitage writes in The World of Copernicus (p. 63) that at Bologna the law students "were grouped into 'nations' roughly corresponding to the parts of Europe from which they hailed. Thus Copernicus was enrolled in the German 'nation'..." Copernicus' enrollment in the German "nation" documents his geographical, not necessarily his ethnic much less his national, origin.

Marcin Kromer's 1581 Frombork Cathedral memorial tablet, calling Copernicus "artiae et medicinae doctor," again is not itself an actual medical degree. If Copernicus held a doctorate in something other than law, please provide the documentation.

You wrote earlier disparagingly of Kraków University having originally been called the "Kraków Academy." An institution that trains physicians in the United States today is called a "Medical School." In Poland the corresponding institution is rendered into English as "Medical University." Does that make the American institution inferior to the Polish one?

And what has "Polish pride" to do with all this? Nihil novi (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, why do you keeping mentioning "German natio" when it was already explained to you that ALL POLISH STUDENTS at that time signed into the German natio - there was NO POLISH NATIO in Bologna at that time. Natio was not a declaration of nationality but a student corporation. Szopen (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is absolutely ridiculous. Copernicus was no one but a German-Polish, a Pole of the German ancestry. Unlike the present-day republic of Poland, the Kingdom of Poland was much more of a multi-ethnic country like the United States. Do you ever call an Amecican of the German or Polish ancestry "a purely German" or "a purely Polish"? An American is an American, or, being of any German/Polish ancestry, he/she may sometimes be called "a German-American" or "a Polish-Amecian" with hyphnation. Like this, simply. Germans and Poles, stop it. --116.81.240.19 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever my freinds ask me why they can't use wikipedia as a credible sorce for their papers, I show them this article and how it was hijacked by pro-German users.--Thecoldmidwest (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE BLOCK FIRST SECTION

This has become completely ridiculous. Will the administrators place a total block on the first section of this article. Toiday alone there have been two revisions and two reverts. What a waste of everybody's time!

Syrenab (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. And to the reality of the 200+ year old dispute. Maybe you should have checked the article's history and its talk to be warned beforehand? -- Matthead  Discuß   10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Things I wanted to add, need to discuss first

Hi everyone. I just changed something but was reverted by Ckatz with the comment "should be discussed, as well as reworded to avoid analysis" (see [21] for reference). So, my change in section 14 was as follows:

"Both the nationality and ethnicity of Copernicus are disputed and has been described in various publications as Polish, German, or both. However, given that he was born, lived, and died in the now historical region of Prussia and described himself as Prussian he can be safely called a Prussian (in this sense only, not confusing it with the later only partly related Kingdom of Prussia), thus avoiding the dispute because Prussian at that time was distinct from both Polish and German. The part of Prussia he lived in was at first a Polish protectorate and later incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland."

Any objections regarding factuality? Any thoughts how to formulate it better? Der Eberswalder (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing for now the substance of what you wrote, the writing is not clear, grammatical English. Also, every statement in the passage will require citation of WP:RSs. The one citation that you do supply is not sufficient; it does not indentify the author of the statement that supports the proposition that Copernicus described himself as Prussian, and the results of a Google search is not an adequate URL for a publication. A fragment from a Google search is not a substitute for real library research. Lastly, the thrust of the statement is not WP:NPOV because it does not accurately reflect the consensus of reliable sources on the subject of Copernicus's nationality. Finell (Talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need reliable sources. What's wrong with the English? Der Eberswalder (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Der Eberswalder, but I do not have the time now to do a rewrite, and a detailed critique would take even longer. I mean no personal offense, and I do not even know whether English is your primary language. In my opinion, the writing is below Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps you know someone who is known as a good writer editor. Or you could ask for assistance from the WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I am limiting my Wikipedia participation to a minimum now because of work pressure. Again, I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful now. Finell (Talk) 12:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The part of Prussia where he lived was not a Polish protectorate but a part of the Polish kingdom with significant autonomy. Szopen (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, protectorate is not the correct term for this. But my point is, in the time frame between 1466 and 1569 the relationship Poland - Royal Prussia was like the relationship England - Scotland between 1603 and 1707. One was not a part of the other but both had the same monarch (personal union), which only later developed into a real union with one state. Der Eberswalder (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NO, that's wrong. Prussia was not in personal union with Poland, Prussia was PART, a province, of Polish kingdom. The treaties are very specific about that: Prussia is "INCORPORATED" into Poland. E.g. Every Polish king authomatically took over the Prussia (and all titles which were tied with that possession). Polish king issued his laws as Polish king. Prussians had a seats for them in Polish parliament (they didn't took it, but as it was put to them by Siennicki during negotations before UoL: you had the rights, who cares you didn't made use of them). In contrast, in Lithuania, which was in personal union, king issued rights as Lithuanian duke, and treaties were very specific about Lithuania is not part of Polish kingdom.

The view about "personal union" is typical German POV. Note that some POlish kings did in times try to treat Royal Prussia as if it was in personal union with Poland, which caused constant complains from Polish parliament (again, Siennicki: "we are most disturbed by your Majesty understanding that your Majesty keeps it by some different right") Szopen (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So some Polish kings had typical German POV and typical German POV agreed with some Polish kings? Sigismund II Augustus (1520 — 1572) was Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, nec non terrarum Cracoviae, Sandomiriae, Siradiae, Lanciciae, Cuiaviae, Kijoviae, Russiae, Woliniae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Podlachiae, Culmensis, Elbingensis, Pomeraniae, Samogitiae, Livoniae etc. dominus et haeres. In regard to Copernicus, by the deal with Prussian Confederation cities and gentry, Casimir and later kings were also styled "Culmensis dominus et haeres", Lord and heir of Culmerland, including NCs place of birth, Thorn. Same applies for Elbing, and the parts of Pomerania and Prussia. Why are these places mentioned separately, alongside with Polonia, and not simply covered by Polonia, or at least by neighboring areas like Masovia? For example, the Duchy of Masovia "was not incorporated into the Polish kingdom until the death of the last regional duke, Janusz III Mazowiecki, in 1526" when Copernicus was already over 50 years old. Later kings were called Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dvx Lituaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, .... Were Lithuania, and the claimed parts of Russia and Prussia parts of Poland, or did they have the same ruler for some time? -- Matthead  Discuß   19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You seems no to understand that titles are just titles. Especially the example you provided is quite silly: Sigismund Augustus titles mentions "Cracoviae", "Sandomiriae", "Cuiaviae" e.g. simply provinces. Titles of others according to you would prove that Poland was in personal union with Russia ("magnus dux Russiae"). As I wrote, those are just titles. Treaty clearly stated that Prussia is incorporated into Poland. This was also the opinion of contemporaries, e.g. Dlugosz clearly writes that he is happy that "Pomorze returned to Poland". Prussia was part of Poland, not in personal union with Poland.

To prove me wrong quote one document in which any POlish kng would issue laws etc as duke of Prussia, not as king of Poland. In Lithuania he was issuing laws as great duke of Lithuania. In Poland as king of Poland. And in Prussia... ? Szopen (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget that the Prussians viewed themselves not as Poles, just like people from Wales don't see themselves as English. From the Polish viewpoint it was a province, from the local Prussian's viewpoint it was a personal union. The special status of Royal Prussia (not only a province) was expressed in the Union of Lublin: Incidentally, at that time the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was really a union of three nations [four, if one counted the Ruthenians]. It is often forgotten that during the Seym debates in 1569 a Union with Royal Prussia was also signed. [22] Der Eberswalder (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not forget that (that elites of Prussia saw themselves as "Prussian" - it's hard to say how widespread this view was, and whether it really contrasted with being German or Polish (later people used phrase gente something, natione something)). Nevertheless, it was not personal union in legal sense. Polish king ruled Prussia as Polish king, because of his rights as Polish king, not because he was Prussian duke. Whoever was elected Polish king ruled Prussia. As for "personal union" view my impression is that it started to be popular in XVIII century with Prussian historian called L-something (Lengnich? Leignich? can't remember) who was trying to prove that Prussia before UoL was separate country tied with Poland only by person of king.

In other words, Lithuanians owed loyalty to Great Duke of Lithuania. Prussians owed loyalty to king of Poland. Szopen (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And how many Polish speaking persons owed loyalty to the Tsar of Russia, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, all through the 19th century and even in the first part of the 20th century? As pointed out many times, picking a random figure from the list of Poles very likely will raise eyebrows: Kazimierz Fajans was born in Russian Empire and spent most of the first three decades of his academic life at German universities, co-discovering the element Protactinium, before the Nazis drove him out to the US. It is save to say he never had citizenship of Poland, never studied at the Jagiellonian Univ in Cracow, never was local to a Polish leader, never defended a Polish city - which are the criteria cited for Copernicus' claimed Polishness. The amount of Polish POV on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Just look at Gabriel Fahrenheit, another victim of relentless POV pushers. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point. I wasn't here arguing whether Copernicus was Polish or German, since I support Eberswalder in that he was Prussian. I was arguing here that Royal Prussia was not in personal union with Poland, but it was autonomous province of the kingdom. As a side note, Gabriel Fahrenheit is good example. According to: [23] he signed himself at least on one occasion as "Fahrenheit Polonus" (I will contact the author to find out from where he has this information).Szopen (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY, why do all of you insist on arguing at (not with) each other about this issue? Neither side will persuade the other, and the rest of us don't want to be bothered by this nationalist rancor. The participants are not ignorant of the other side's arguments and evidnece. They reach the opposite conclusion (from whichever side you are agruing) by assigning different weights to the relative importance of established facts, and by choosing to reach a differnt conclusion about facts that cannot be established with certainty (because of conflicting evidence or lack of reliable evidence). The argument between uou is hopeless and a waste of your time, and for the reast of us is an unwelcome distraction and a waste of Wikipedia's resources (among other things). JUST STOP, or at least take it elsewhere. How about a Yahoo! Group devoted to arguing about the history of Northern Europe, and who conquered whom, from the beginning of time through WWII? Finell (Talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "who conquered whom" is not a thing of the past, it's going on, right here on Wikipedia, with articles and talk pages getting conquered and occupied to promote the national pride of some. It has started years ago before you registered your account, Finell, and you will not stop it by yelling. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Finell is right. This is a waste of time. Nihil novi (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Please notice the definition of nationality in wikipedia,first two lines. There in no doubt that Copernicus born after 1454 in Thorn was subject of Polish Crown and therefore Polish national.We can argue about his ancestry or ethnicity and this part is unclear. His father was born in Cracow or near Cracow and arrived in Thorn around 1458 after it became part of Polish Crown regardless of level of its authonomy in relation to Poland. His father was at all times polish subject and national and at birth Copernicus his father and mother were polish subjects and polish nationals of whatever ancestry,that's a fact. In whatever capacity he took part in defence of Allenstein,which side he stood for is clear. What we feel who we are is a different story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkkoz (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus was born a subject of the Polish crown, but of course the King of Poland at that time, Casimir IV Jagiellon, wasn't himself of Polish extraction, but Lithuanian-Belorussian. The Jagiellonian dynasty faced opposition from Polish nobles after the death of its founder, Casimir's father, who converted from paganism to Catholicism in order to be accepted as King of Poland. The dynasty also ruled Lithuania, which then included Belorussians, Ruthenians (in western Ukraine & elsewhere), among other Slavic & non-Slavic peoples, & at times the Kingdoms of Bohemia & Hungary (much larger than the present republic).

IMO it's anachronistic to refer to Copernicus as either Polish or German. Nation states as we now know them scarcely existed in 1473-1543, if at all. Why not just state the facts as succinctly as possible in the Wikipedia entry? While technically a subject of the Polish crown, Copernicus was born, raised & lived most of his life in the autonomous province of Royal Prussia, the cities of which were German in language & culture, as to some extent was Magdeburg Law-chartered Krakow, the Hanseatic League city whence his father came. Copernik is itself a suggestive name, since it combines the German word for copper with the Slavic suffix -nik. No one knows how well Copernicus could speak Polish, if at all, nor to what extent he might have had Polish ancestry. It seems indisputable, IMO, that German was his mother tongue, both literally, as the speech of his mother, but probably the language of his father as well. Referring to him as "Prussian", while accurate, since he was a citizen of cities in Royal Prussia, an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland, does unfortunately today imply for most readers in English that he was "German" by citizenship rather than ethnicity & culture. So describing his ethnicity & nationality (or statehood) as "German-Polish" is probably about as close to reality as possible in short-hand for a general readership today, without going into the level of detail of commentators here. Jagiellonian (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional background information

I found an interesting source which also sheds some light into the surrounding situation of Copernicus and could help to solve the dispute:
East Central Europe in the Middle Ages 1000-1500, Jean W. Sedlar, University of Washington Press, 1994, quote from pages 281-282 [24]

Royal Prussia enjoyed considerable autonomy after it renounced the government of the Teutonic Knights in 1454 and became a province of Poland. Its leading men insisted, and the king conceded, that only natives of Prussia could hold office there (i.e., no more foreign knights). The Prussians themselves viewed their territory as united to Poland only through the king's person. They did not wish to participate in Polish campaigns or pay the same taxes as other Polish subjects. Only unwillingly did they join in meetings of the Polish royal Council, since participation would require them to execute its decisions. Social and ethnic differences reinforced this separateness. The towns of Royal Prussia possessed far greater economic strength than their counterparts in Poland and played a correspondingly greater political role. Representatives of the towns sat in the Diet of Royal Prussia and in the ruling Prussian Council. The same coinage circulated in both parts of Prussia, differing in weight and standard from that of Poland.

The Prussians chose the Polish king because he was less of an annoyance than the Teutonic Knights. But they still considered themselves as Prussians, not as Poles (and not as Germans).

Using the same standard:
- Marie Curie's nationality was not Russian, even though she was a subject of the Russian tsar and her native country (Poland) has been made a province of Russia
- Copernicus's nationality was not Polish, even though he was a subject of the Polish king and his native country (Prussia) has been made a province of Poland

See? To call Nicolaus Copernicus a Polish astronomer would be the same as calling Marie Curie a Russian chemist.
Both is kind of right, and both is inaccurate.

[Disputed logic. Even if Copernicus's family did settle in Poland generations back - which has yet to be proven - using the logic of the revisionists, we should then apply their thinking to all U.S. achievers - i.e., trace back their roots and them by their origins. This would make George Washington British, General Dwight Eisenhower German, Franklin Roosevelt Dutch, etc. It was U.S. culture, soil and opportunities that made U.S. achievers what they are. The same is true for Copernicus. By the same token, unless Germany has been incredibly insular throughout the centuries, "German" heroes of culture and history might well be found to be Polish, Lituanian, and other nationalities. Complementing the logic and factual issues, German scholars and ethnocentrists advancing this debate embarrass themselves and show breathtaking insensitivity and covetousness toward their geographic neighbor's intellectual and cultural goods. ~jj48105] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj48105 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2009

It was Niccolò Comneno Papadopoli, Italian librarian of Greek origin, who in 1726 published false claims, including that Copernicus had joined a "Polish natio" in Padua. Decades later, Poles started to claim Copernicus as Pole. Some Germans even echoed this before his biography became subject of proper research, and the historic facts became public knowledge. Present day Poles, up to government level, embarrass themselves and their nation by still desperately pretending that the German-speaking astronomer was 100% Polish. Before, during and after the life of Copernicus, there were a dozen or so significant astronomers who were undisputedly German, yet no significant (or even also-ran) astronomer who was Polish. While the political and cultural affiliation of the Royal part of Prussia may be ambiguous, his knowledge of German can not be questioned. Yet, Poles deny this, even in Wikipedia articles. Shame on them. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We could use the same formulation for both the Curie and Copernicus articles. First the quote from the Curie article:
Marie Curie was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship. She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first and only person honored with Nobel Prizes in two different sciences, and the first female professor at the University of Paris. ... While an actively loyal French citizen, she never lost her sense of Polish identity.

Used in this article it would be:
Nicolaus Copernicus was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. ... While an actively loyal Polish citizen, he never lost his sense of Prussian identity.

Sounds good enough? Der Eberswalder (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Maria Skłodowska was not a happy, faithful subject of the Russian tsar. She did not choose a Russian university. She did not defend Russian castles and towns. She did not spend most of her life in Russia. Copernicus did not attend floating, illegal Prussian university, hiding from reprisals from Polish authorities. And so on. The analogy is poor. The facts are these:

• Major encyclopedias all over the world consider him Polish.
• "Prussian" in the minds of many (and not only laymen) means German.
  

Space Cadet (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No double standards, please. Either choose to classify a person by citizenship based on place of birth, or by ethnicity as e.g. manifested by the language of writings. Either a Royal Prussian Polish Copernicus and a Congress Polish Russian Curie, or a Middle Low German Latin Copernicus and a Polish French Curie. Besides, Copernicus has chosen three Italian universities which are more significant than his freshman Cracow episode, he defended the local Prussian city of Allenstein, and published in Germany with the help of (fellow) Germans, while Madame Curie did not bother to move to Poland in the 1920s to become a happy, faithful subject of Pilsudski and Sanjacia. Regarding major printed encyclopedias: some still have remnants of the days of old when anti-German propaganda was en vogue, but that will erode sooner or later as scholars do not bother to assign a modern nationality to Copernicus: neither German, nor Polish. See once again what the otherwise beloved God's Playground of Norman Davies says: Nicholas Copernicus (1473—1543). Born in Thorn, in Royal Prussia, he spent the greater part of his career .. in Frauenberg. Mr. Davies seems not to be used well to German names and should add Frauenburg to his spell checker, but he knows that the German names are appropriate for the lifetime of Copernicus (and centuries before and after), not 20th century Torun or Frombork. The city names have to be fixed in this article, BTW. Polish POV has been disseminated too far in the past, and will be reduced. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not set such standards, whether single, double, or otherwise. Wikipedia does not set a standard for determining a person's nationality or ethnicity, nor for the value of the person's work, nor for any of the other facts or opinions that are appropriate to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. To adopt our own standards (to use your term) for such matters would be to engage in original research, which Wikipedia's core policies forbid us to do. Instead, what Wikipedia does, or is supposed to do, is to present fairly the conclusions of the most reliable sources that are available to us now, on a subject's nationality, and on all encyclopedic content about the subject. Where there is substantial disagreement among reliable sources, on a subject's nationality or on anything else, Wikipedia presents the differing views of the reliable sources in fair proportion to the number and reliability of the sources that hold the the differing views. That has not happened in this Wikipedia article, and in some others, because of the relentless pushing of a nationalistic POV by a tiny but persistent minority. That, in turn, diminishes the reliability of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and subjects Wikipedia to well-deserved criticism. Finell (Talk) 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the reality of Wikipedia, Finell. Nationalities are stated on Wikipedia, and often very different standards are applied to determine this nationality. As pointed out many times, please look at the list of Poles and check how many prominent figures are claimed as Poles in highly doubtful fashion. I've pointed out many examples already. The List_of_Poles#Astronomy not only includes "Jan Heweliusz" (Johannes Hevelius) and "Mikołaj Kopernik" (Nicolaus Copernicus), but also figures like Stanisław Lubieniecki who while in exile in Germany tried to make money by illustrating accounts of comet sightings, which is as much astronomy as filming Star Wars. Alexius Sylvius Polonus was "a little-known maker of astronomical instruments" even from Polish POV. And so on, vanity and wishful thinking galore. One Polish user even boldy added himself [25]. In contrast, look how many figures in the Category:People from Gdańsk are claimed by edit warriors as Polish even when they lived in Danzig(!) and were clearly part of German culture. Look at Johannes Daniel Falk, a stub with two lines, but endless editwarring to squeeze in the vital information "(Gdańsk) in the Polish province of Royal Prussia". Never mind the guy spent his life in Germany (within modern day borders), a fact of low importance according to de facto Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia's lopsidedness is appalling "because of the relentless pushing of a nationalistic POV by a tiny but persistent minority", as you correctly state. But you do not state to which side the persistent minority is pushing, nor who the pushers are. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"In contrast, look how many figures in the Category:People from Gdańsk are claimed by edit warriors as Polish " Since Gdańsk was Polish city why wouldn't they be Poles ? As to 'German culture'-Germany was created in XIX century, before that they were local cultures, sadly destroyed by the Prussian state like many other cultures that fell victim to it--Molobo (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Karin Friedrich herself in a personal e-mail strongly urged me to call Copernicus a PRUSSIAN astronomer. She also said it's a clear case. I don't know - what do you guys think? I know Szopen would be happy. Space Cadet (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Better to leave Copernicus stateless, as he is now, than make him a Prussian, which would confuse 99.99% of the English-language Wikipedia's readers. Nihil novi (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through all this before. Regardless of what the term meant a half-millennium ago, today Prussian means German, and that is how the statement would be understood by the readers English Wikipedia today. By the way, to which Karin Friedrich does Space Cadet refer? The link is to a disambiguation page. And how is her unpublished opinion relevant to content on Wikipedia? And did she really "strongly urge" Space Cadet impose her will on Wikipedia's article, overriding the consensus of Wikipedians? Has she strongly urged Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Americana to do the same? If she has, they didn't buy it. Finell (Talk) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. And I was equally surprised at what Dr Friedrich wrote me. I agree that most English speakers identify Prussian with German. Let's leave him stateless then. I just thought it would be interesting to find out what she thinks about the issue, that's all. Space Cadet (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

In the Nationality and ethnicity section, many Citations needed tags have remained unfulfilled for several months. Unless sufficiently reliable sources are cited that adequately support the statements to which these tags are attached within one additional week, I intend to remove the statements. Today, I hung several new Citations needed tags. Unless adequate supporting source citations are supplied within three weeks, I intend to remove the statements to which these new tags are attached. Although it is permissible to remove unsourced material without warning, especially where the statements are contentious or subject to dispute, I am giving this warning out of deference to the many Wikipedians of opposing views who have contributed to this section of the article. Finell (Talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been nine weeks—three times as long. I have deleted the contentious unsourced statements. Nihil novi (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology again

Some time ago I asked for the claim that Copernicus had studied astrology to be supported by citation to a reliable source. On reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Copernicus, I find it says "there is no doubt that Copernicus studied astrology while at the University of Padua", so this would appear to fill the bill. However, the entry also agrees with the other scholarly sources I cited that, as far as we can tell from the available documentary evidence, Copernicus apparently never practised astrology or expressed any interest in it. I will accordingly add a couple of sentences to that effect. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

External links to Antikythera site

Why does the external links section include two links to a site about the Antikythera machine? This is an article about Copernicus, and I don't see the relevance. I hope that someone who knows the history of this article will consider either removing the links or moving them to the Antikythera article where they will be on topic. Thanks for reading this. 129.15.127.243 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism by Copernicus

I read an article written by the Dean of Astronomy at the University of Toronto a few years ago in which he stated that the mathematical models/theorems that Copernicus used to explain planetary motion was plagarized by him from the works of Arab and / or Persian astronomers of the 12th / 13th centuries. That knowledge had been destroyed by the Mongols in the Arab Islamic world but had survived Moorish rule in Spain, from where it passed on to the rest of Western Europe over the next couple of centuries. This fact of plagarism by Copernicus is now well documented and accepted in the scientific community but is not widely known.

I had read another book, written by the one time editor of OMNI magazine on the history of Mathematics and Science in the non-western world in which that author had also discussed this plagarism in detail and also explained what theorem(s) were plagarized. I cannot recall the name of that book at this time but will update this page once I can recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 August 2008

Arabic/Islamic Science and the Renaissance Science in Italy (By George Saliba - Princeton University)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the copied & pasted text in the previous post with a link to the web page from which it was apparently copied. Please do not copy and paste entire web pages like this—it is a serious violation of copyright. I note also that Saliba's article makes no accusation of plagiarism against Copernicus.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't talk about plagiarism when in math you use what was developed before you. Also it looks like "after the war everybody is a general" nobody, besides Aristarchus really worked an heliocentric model, mainly because of ethical and religious reasons. Muslim astronomers could not go against the Qumran that states at 002.029 that there are “seven heavens”, all created by Allah, the same seven Ptolomeic planetary heavens or spheres: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, like the seven days of the week. So it is very improbable the Muslims astronomers would have gone against it without risking their neck, they may have mentioned the possibility of a heliocentric universe without developing it as it was done by Copernicus in his monumental work “Revolutionibus”. ::—User:Jorge Ianis1 February 2009. —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Burnt at the stake?

I have a question, wasn't Copernicus burnt at the stake for his views on Heliocentrism? Why did I think that he was; but he actually died in bed on May 24, 1543. Signed: Paul Bannon 71.112.231.214 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he was not. I have no idea why you thought that he was. Finell (Talk) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Girolamo Savonarola was burned in 1498 while Copernicus was in Italy, which may have taught him to be careful. Giordano Bruno supported Copernican cosmology, but that was not a reason why he was burned in 1600. Enough to confuse some, maybe. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bannon, stop asking idiotic questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Because he was living in Poland. There was no such behavior, almost at all, although Poland was a catholic kingdom --Matrek (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Witch trials in Early Modern Europe, a four-digit number of executions took place there, and Poland also has the dubious honor of being the last European county to cease the practice. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, "no recorded", but "estimated, 1500" ! What's a basis of this estimation? Someone's feeling? There is no historical proof for any visible number of that kind of execution.--Matrek (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What would matter would be number of executions per capita per some standard unit of time. Also that last witch executed in Poland was actually executed by Prussian authorities. So not quite. Anyway, since all this is irrelevant, we should probably cease this lest it turns into another dispute about nationalities.radek (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrospect III

I've occasionally monitored this egregiously prolix discussion for something like four years. It is incredible that even nationalist nit-pickers from both (or all) sides can't agree on Polish-German, German-Polish or, conceivably, Prusso-German-Polish. (For Wiki's sake, I would even settle for Prusso-Polish.)

I accuse all extreme POVers involved, of whatever origin, of obtuse obstructionism, pointless space-filling, and irrelevance. Full stop.

Sca (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links Not Working

Under General: "Parallax and the Earth's Orbit"

Under About De Revolutionibus: "A Java Applet About Retrograde Motion"

Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference section

I'm going through the refs on the page and reformatting the reference section for readability - So far so good. I've noticed some peculiar reference formatting. Like this:

• Rabin, Sheila (2005). "Copernicus". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved 2008-05-26.

I'm not familiar with this formatting style. I'll leave it alone for now but if anyone knows the idea behind the cite book/cite web notation give me a holler. Mrshaba (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• This ref link for this sentences is dead: "Holding the office of canon, he traveled extensively on government business and as a diplomat on behalf of the Prince-Bishop of Warmia." [26]

• Another dead link: [27]

Mrshaba (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stop screwing with your references now. I see there's some subtle interlinking going on that I'm not familiar with but I believe I backed out all the edits that damaged the interlinking. Mrshaba (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual error

Section 1.4 Work states that Copernicus returned to Warmia (Prussia), "and until 1510 resided in the Bishop's castle at Lidzbark (Heilsberg)." There are two towns named "Lidzbark" close to each other. The article points to the wrong one. The town and the castle where Copernicus resided is called Lidzbark Warmiński (NOT Lidzbark aka Lidzbark Welski, to which the link in the article wrongly points) and here is the article about the correct Lidzbark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidzbark_Warmiński (Lidzbark Warmiński). Please someone correct it.

Done. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsarticle about face reconstruction

at the discovery website there is a newsarticle about the facereconstruction of copernicus based on his skull. It also contains information on how he was barried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.152.29 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is already pretty well covered in the 'death' section - with cited info giving the same/more data with same/similar pictures. The only thing that is doubted their is the fact that not all the remains were found.--Alf ^melmac 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

face of Nicolaus Copernicus

Here is a link to article with reconstruction face of Kopernik - made basic on his scull found in Polnad.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/5,78402,2999168.html

I suggest to put one or two picture to the Wikipedia.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/5,78402,2999168.html?i=6

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/5,78402,2999168.html?i=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.246.227 (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus was German according to German Wikipedia

However, this has not always been the case. Originally, the German Wikipedia admitted his Polish heritage (version from 2006: “Nikolaus Kopernikus (* 19. Februar 1473 in Thorn, Polen;“ „Nach Paduaner Archiven war er 1499 in Padua, trug sich in das Album der "natio Polona" ein“ „Von 1491–94 besuchte Kopernikus die Universität in Krakau (poln. Kraków), wo er u.a. Schüler von Wojciech Brudzewski (lat. Albertus de Brudzewo) war“).

However, later Copernicus became germanized by some professional revisionists paid by right-wing German parties. The references to his Polish heritage were carefully removed. Instead, things like these appeared:

„Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts übersiedelte der Urgroßvater nach Krakau. Die Einwohnerschaft der polnischen Hauptstadt bestand in den 1480er Jahren zu 36% aus Deutschen[11].“ (“At the beginning of the 15th century, the grandfather moved to Cracow. The population of the Polish capital consisted in the 1480s in 36% of Germans”) Why the second sentence? By replacing the number of Germans with any other nationality that was present in Cracow, you can prove he was of any nationality you wish.

"In den kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem Deutschen Orden und Polen vertrat Kopernikus, genau wie sein Onkel, die Seite des Preußischen Bundes, welcher mit Polen gegen den Deutschen Orden verbündet war" ("In the war efforts between the Teutonic Knights and Poland, Copernicus supported - exactly like his uncle - the Prussian Union which was allied with Poland against the Teutonic Knights"). One might think Prussia was not part of Poland and Copernicus was not a loyal subject of the Polish King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.147.123 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A section was added entitled “Streit um seine Nationalität” (“The nationality controversy”) which is trying to ridicule the idea of Copernicus being Polish. (E.g. the fact that he wrote in Latin allegedly proves that he was German, while in fact, Latin was the official language of the Polish kingdom).

An interesting insight is provided by reading the comments section:

„Wer profitiert und warum wird Kopernikus als Pole bezeichnet ?“ („Who profits and why is Copernicus described as a Pole?“) For the Germans, the truth is irrelevant; it’s important who profits.

„Das engl. wiki hat sich nach monatelangem muehsehligen Beweisebringen jetzt sehr viel gebessert“ („The English Wiki has improved very much after months of lenghtly proofing“) Note the wording: “improved”. For the Germans, the truth is irrelevant; the English Wiki has to be “improved” to serve their propaganda.

It’s obvious that the revisionists are fully aware that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer. The German Wikipedia starts resembling “Der Völkische Beobachter”. But why did we allow them to remove the simple expression “Polish astronomer” from the English Wikipedia? Let the Germans lie to themselves, they used to do things much worse than that (like voting for Adolf Hitler), but why do we allow their propaganda to be widely presented to the international audience in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.147.123 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the German Wikipedia, so their editorial revisions have no bearing on our text. That said, I personally think the section on nationality and ethnicity presents a good, neutral discussion of the situation, and I have no objections to the solution that was hammered out via protracted discussions (see the archive mentioned above). —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only made to resemble "a good, neutral discussion", while in fact, it's propaganda. The fact that his mother was of German origin proves that he was German. The fact that his father was Polish proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.147.123 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that revisionism is also rife on the English page. The reference of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to the German origins of Copernicus was carefully edited out, and I doubt whether it was done at 'German' instigation. Poles LOVE to take the high road and damn Germans for anything whatsoever, while engaging in what they accuse the 'Prussians' of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goethicus (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

His Mother(Barbara Watzenrode) was German. His father was Polish. So yes he is German and yes he is a Pole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, "German right wing parties paid...". LOL. Come on, guys, why not only once stick to the facts? And yeah, bring the WWII argument on against, nothing better than the other "ad hominem" insults (Lets judge people by their nationality). Poles are apparently big conspiracy theorists, suspecting somebody to pay somebody else to do something against their national pride. Ridicoulus, not one fact is hard enough to withstand a thorough inspection. First: Nobody says Frombork was not in the Polish Kingdom at that time, politically yes. Also the German page states that still. If you want to take that as an argument, he was Polish. (Curie was not born in Poland too, it just did not exist at that time...) But as this region was German only several years ago and changed sides several times, it is not a very solid argument and pretty lame, too. Don't you think the cultural influences are more important? Therefore he rather might have been both: From a German family (no proof his father was Polish, nobody just knows - if the name originally was Koppernigk, he would surely have been German, Kopper=copper / his father was a merchant for metal) and living in a mixed German/Polish society (Torun had a German majority, Krakow a Polish one). Secondly: Family ties: Mother German. Father was judge in Torun, what only Germans could become at that time. So, only the Polish possibly changed his name later to Kopernik from Koppernigk - makes that him a 100% Pole? Third: Killer argument: He enrolled as a German student in Padua. Yeah, sure, he was Polish and just wanted to join the German group as there was no Polish. What is more probable, as there are no official Polish writing from his side existing? Only in German and Latin. Last, but not least: In his "revolutionibus" he is writing about himself to be a Prussian/German. "Nic.Cop. Canonici Varmiensis in Borussia Germaniae mathematici..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.92 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are good comments being deleted?

As soon as a pro-Polish editor has successfuly countered a German editor's falsification, the entire thread is being deleted. Only pro-German arguments are being left intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.147.123 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of your comment, I just went through over 2 months of Talk page edits, one by one. I did not find any instance where an "entire thread is being deleted," let alone the pattern of targeted deletions that you allege. I did find one single anti-German comment that was deleted. While the comment does not contribute much to a rational dialogue, in my opinion it is not so patently offensive—especially in the context of German-Polish animosity that has raged on this page for years—that deletion was justified. Therefore, I restored it in its proper sequence above. It is headlined "German nationalists are doing a good job" (that was the original author's heading). The comment was unsigned, like yours, so I attributed it to the IP address of the individual who posted it. Finell (Talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz (talk) deleted the post that I described above in the Revision as of 23:49, 20 November 2008, with no edit comment other than the fact of reverting. Shortly after I restored the post, its original author, User:216.218.41.190 (talk), deleted it with this edit comment: "Some people consider my comment offensive - so I wish to delete it." Finell (Talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Finell, apologies for this one - I thought I'd left a comment. The post was deleted because it appeared to be yet another Serafin incident. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, I really appreciate it, but I was referring to threads much older than 2 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.147.123 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that old threads are archived to another page. Beyond that, I don't think it's feasible to try to evaluate edits that old for any suppression of threads. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:99.225.147.123: I wish your message had said that you were talking about very old threads, so I would not have wasted my time. You wrote your message in the present tense, which means that it is a current, not past, problem. In October 2007, some people were deleting posts on this Talk page and edit warring in the argument (I won't call it a discussion) over Copernicus's nationality. I reported that unacceptable behavior here. It resulted in this warning by Admin Raymond Arritt:

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)

So far as I am aware, deletion of others' Talk page posts has not been a problem since then.

Also, User:99.225.147.123, please sign your posts, even if it is only with your IP address. That is considered good etiquette on Wikipedia. Also, although it is not required for participation here, please consider registering for a Wikipedia account with your own user name; the name need not reveal your identity. Finell (Talk) 07:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasted your time and thanks for the advice. But why is actually every supporter of the Polish position a "suspected sockpuppet of Serafin"? Are the world's leading encyclopedias also "suspected sockpuppets of Serafin"? Was the first version of the Copernicus article in the German Wikipedia also done by Serafin? Was Copernicus himself also Serafin? And the link to the "Shame on you" article does not work - I was unable to find it. Copernicus has always been a loyal subject of the Polish king. It's a fact and the entire nationality debate is nonsence. This article remains a joke as long as it does not clearly say "Polish astronomer". First they germanized Copernicus in the German Wikipedia, then in the English one. How far will these distortions of history go? Will they soon establish that John Paul II was German? 99.225.147.123 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon behind an IP located in Canada, you might be pleased to learn that Canadian teenagers have learned their lesson about him: Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer ... was a Polish astronomer ... was born ... in Thorn, Poland ... and a Polish astronomer. Buffalo is not far from Canada, and the U there mirrors the „Polish Academic Information Center“, an interuniversity agency of the University at Buffalo ... and Poland's Jagiellonian University ... under the aegis of Poland's Ministry of National Education. That Ministry provides an NC bio (Mikolaj Kopernik ... was born in Poland) and e.g. a history of Gdansk that does not once mention German or Germany in order to Let the Children Know about the Point of View of Poland in the Classroom. BTW: According to Norman Davies, "first signs of Polish chauvinism appear" in early 14th century Cracow. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortened to focus on the observations of the "Polish astronomer" claim and its dissemination by official Polish sources and by less than careful North American academic institutions. This is relevant to the article which is still in a bad shape. Davies' Chauvinism quote illustrates why this may be the case. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, please quit ranting. Even a talk page of an article is not a place for that. And all you really do is string together a series of completely irrelevant non sequitors. And BTW, the sentence "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer" that an anon user keeps adding into this article for the past few months has been removed repeatedly by Polish editors such as myself. Per consensus. So perhaps you should respect the consensus like the rest of us and not try to start up another pointless fight.radek (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Cracow was not founded in 1257. Cracow received new set of laws in 1257 (commonly called German law). Szopen (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Info-Poland- Buffalo, New York- supposed school children's education, mere propaganda site

[28] The info-Poland.icm.edu.pl/classroom site featured at Buffalo New York in connection with Polish Ministry of Education, see links above, is supposed to educated children, but is instead publishing blatant propaganda rather than real history and false claims as in the case of "Polish" [29] Nicolaus Copernicus.

The German Wikipedia discussions earlier did not take into account, that the claim of Nicolaus Copernicus having signed himself in as Polish National in an Italian university, was infact a lie and was disproven in the 19th century. That was after a prominent German Dictionary had already printed this in the 1850s, which was shown as reference. That the lie, later disproven, based on the Papadopoli falsification is still being spred in the 21th century, only shows, that lies are not easily gotten rid of. An Observer (71.137.205.166 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

---

You also spread propaganda. We cannot prove whether Copernicus was german or polish roots but this is a fact that Copernicus was a subject of polish king and he was serving polish kingdom (in politics and economy) and he has special merits to polish nation.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.151.115.9 Discussion by User:193.151.115.9

---

Dear User 193.151.9, it is very obvious, that your knowledge about Nicolaus Copernicus is very limited. Please familiarize yourself with the extensive discussions and factual entries to the Prussian born Nicolaus Copernicus, who lived and worked in the Prussian Prince-Bishopric of Ermland/Latin:Warmia and in the prince-bishopric of Breslau Wroclaw at the Kreuzkirche, and who for centuries is documented as Nicolaus Copernicus Prussus Mathematicus or Latin: Borussus Mathematicus.

You talk about proof? There are letters and other documents in German language written by Nicolaus Copernicus himself and where he calls himself a Prussian and his homeland Prussia. And if you take enough time to actually check on the Prussian Prince-Bishopric of Ermland you will find that it was a German prince-bishopric directly under the pope.

Having 'special merits to polish nation' as you write, would be fine, if at the same time acckowledging, who Nicolaus Copoernicus really was (and that he was NOT Polish), but what the University Buffalo New York does on its internet website, by stating Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Poland, is plain incorrect.

To your point about 'serving Polish kingdom (in politics and economy)' , the USA Buffalo University New York 'serves the Poland Ministry of Education', does that make the US University Buffalo Polish? An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

"written by Nicolaus Copernicus himself and where he calls himself a Prussian and his homeland Prussia" It refers to Prussia which was a province of Poland anon. Just as Adam Mickiewicz writes about Lithuania being his homeland , despite being a Pole.--Molobo (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So he wrote in Lithuanian or Polish? Was his name a matter of dispute? Please bring proper analogies to the case, not just stubborn "He was Polish. No proof for writing in Polish? Still Polish." At least Polish people should admit that German / Polish does not fit. What about Germanic / Slavic? Even then it will lead to the same --> Prussians were one of the most eastern tribes that you hardly could say the did not mix with both. So he is a son of a mixed region with a mixed inheritage but surely benefiting from the protecting his (Prussian/German) Uncle gave him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.93 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

The irrelevant comments are being deleted in accordance with Wiki policy on Talk Page Guidelines [30]. Specifically:

• "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." and
• "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)" and also
• "Many article talk pages contain links to archives, which contain earlier discussions. If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read them, as they often deal with common content disputes and resolutions to them. You may well find your questions and/or objections have already been answered."

The above pretty much also apply to Matthead's comments. radek (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the talk by the USA-based 71.* IP which was deleted by Radek. It might not be pretty, but it is relevant to the article and especially to its sources. The second section e.g. refers to the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie edition of 1876 which contains the "Polish natio at Padua" claim of the 1720s which has been proved as false in the 1880s, and was accordingly updated in the German Wikipedia article, about which the "Copernicus was German according to German Wikipedia" talk entry by the 99.* IP above is complaining (I wonder why Radek did not delete that, too?). The "Nationality and ethnicity" section in the article still misses the update, though. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, please explain how the fact that some school some where teaches sometimes that Copernicus was "a Polish astronomer" is at all relevant to this article. Please explain to me what the hell the Pope or his nationality has to do with any of this. Please show me where in this article anything is said about Copernicus signing his name in Polish, or Portugese, or Swahili, or Esperanto at Padua - since it doesn't, there's nothing to update (besides the fact that it's a 19th century German source). Please explain the relevance of the distance between Buffalo, NY, USA and Canada. Please explain how the subject matter of Poland's membership in NATO contributes to this discussion. For those who don't know what I'm referring, all that stuff was in Matthead's comment until he "cleanup"ed it. Matthead, since you're removing some of the completely irrelevant stuff you said, I think you actually know that a lot of this is completely irrelevant to the article and should be likewise removed. Please consult the guidelines above. Just because it's a talk page doesn't mean it's fine to litter it with comment spam and random trolling, as in the anon's comments.

Look, this issue has been discussed TO DEATH. The page was unstable and a mess. Eventually a consensus was reached. No mention of nationality in the lead and a balanced discussion in the relevant section, w/o that section being given undue weight (surprisingly most people in the world don't give a fig about what Kopernik's nationality was). As C.Fred says above the section on nationality and ethnicity "presents a good, neutral discussion". Or at least as good as it is ever going to be given the circumstances and the nature of this topic. The point of compromise is that you don't get everything you want but you get some. The other side does likewise. No one's ever 100% satisfied with it. But do you really want to go back to the edit warring, reverts left and right, trolling, insults and everything else that was going on before? If not, then please don't encourage those anon trolls who do but help other responsible editors keep them in line. And that means deleting irrelevant comments, per guidelines quoted above.radek (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Radek, stop deleting talk of other users, "anon trolls" or not. If you are interested in deleting irrelevant comments, limit yourself to your own ones. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Neither nor

The utter absurdity of this discussion continues — how many years later?

Nevertheless, let me correct a statement made above about German Wikipedia — which never calls Copernicus a "German astronomer" and in fact takes pains to show why he was neither German nor Polish in the "modern" (or should we say 19th century?) sense of the term.

The German Wiki article describes Copernicus in the introduction as "one of the most important astronomers in Western history." Later, it recounts various aspects of Copernicus's heritage and education, and then states:

• Kopernikus stammte aus und wirkte in einem Umfeld, das sowohl zum deutschen als auch zum polnischen Kulturkreis gehörte.

• Jeder Versuch, Kopernikus nur für eine der beiden Nationen zu beanspruchen, klammert wichtige Aspekte seiner Person aus.

Translation:

• Copernicus came from and worked in a region that [at the time] belonged to both the German and Polish cultural realms.

• Every attempt to claim Copernicus solely for one nation or the other will contradict important aspects of his personal life and history.

Sca (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Untrue Wikipedia statements need correction

Wikipedia on Nicolaus Copernicus now states:

• Born 19 February 1473(1473-02-19),
• Toruń (Thorn), Royal Prussia, Poland
• Died 24 May 1543 (aged 70), Frombork (Frauenburg), Warmia, Poland

The city of birth was Thorn Thorun in the country of Prussia.

It was not Poland (even though western Prussia or Prussia Occidentalis or Royal Prussia or West Prussia, was for a time protectorate of the crown of Poland-Lithuania and Wikipedia also has much wrong onesided POV, (enforced by a large group of Polish speakers) in those articles).

The part of Prussia where Nicolaus Copernicus lived, worked and died was the Prince-Bishopric of Ermland, Latin Warmia and the name of the city where Copernicus lived for most years and where he died was Frauenburg in Ermland in Prussia. Again , it was not Poland.

Prussians in all parts of Prussia (western, eastern and Ermland) held continous PRUSSIAN INDIGENAT-Prussian citizenship - NOT POLISH.

Wikipedia article repeatedly disregard International Law in articles about history and people from east of the Oder-Neisse line, making everything and everyone east of the Oder Neisse appear as Polish.

Obviously the entry should read: "Thorn, Prussia, indigenous German territory temporarily occupied by Poland until our times". We all hope for the EU to take an action and rectify this horrendous mistake for the posterity. Actually bad people make everything and everyone west of Rhine appear as French. They also call the northern tip of Germany -- Denmark. And they insist that Czech is a separate nation. All of this waits for the correction in the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.117.243 (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainly reflects Polish POV most of it from books from Communist Polish Historiography POV.

The irony is, that honest Polish writers distance themselves from the Communist Polish Historiography, yet Wikipedia has become Communist Polish POV's greatest perpetrator and now spreads it as "universal knowledge" all across the globe by multiple mirrors. An Observer(70.133.67.155 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

---

There's International Law regarding "articles about history"? News to me.radek (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At least Torun was then not part of Germany thus at least Copernicus was not of German citizenship. "Germany", if any possible, was to be within the Holy Roman Empire at the time. The fact is that Torun is an autonomous town under the Polish Crown and without any diplomatic rights separate from the Kingdom of Poland due to the Second Peace of Torun and this situation is what the town spontaneously had wanted, it naturally is regarded a town of the Kingdom of Poland from the modern view. The dispute whether he is German or Polish arises from the intention to apply the modern international-law criteria to the medieval person, a person who was born in the city under the rule of the Kingdom of Poland and whose father had the Polish citizenship which he acquired in the then Polish Capital of Krakow is no doubt a Polish citizen of the Polish nationality. As Copernicus was raized by his German uncle and his mother tongue was highly probably a German dialect peculiar to the then town of Torun, his ethnicity may possibly be regarded German. Naturally, Copernicus is no one but a German-Pole. To regard him German is never better than to regard him Polish. "A German-Pole" is the final solution. And, you An Observer, before you abuse words like "international law", you should first learn who originated what we today call the law of nations or the international law, when it was, and what the international affairs were like before that. A third party observer(--121.94.178.203 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Protection

As the article was, after my suggestion, fully protected, I've created User:Matthead/NCdraft according to Wikipedia:Subpages Wikipedia:Workpage. Everyone, except the usual vandals, is invited to edit there in a constructive manner, with the aim of creating a consensus version that can be implemented into the real article by an admin. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Ianis: I would like to edit in a constructive manner the first paragraph of the article, but it is not possible. Please vreate an edit mark for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Ianis (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

False Indian and Arab heliocentrism

To start the article on Copernicus stating that " Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, " is out of place here, this should go in an article dedicated to "historical revisions based on weak evidences". Placing this false statement here is an obvious intention of diminishing Copernicus monumental work.

Besides it is not certain that Indian savants did so, even Indian astronomer Aryabhata, IV bC, made clear that the Earth was at rest and the planets went around it. As for the Muslim astronomers they could not go against the Qumran that states at 002.029 that there are “seven heavens”, all created by Allah, the same seven Ptolomeic planetary heavens or spheres: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, like the seven days of the week. So it is very improbable that Muslims astronomers would have gone against it without risking their neck, they may have mentioned the possibility of a heliocentric universe without developing it as it was done by Copernicus in his monumental work “Revolutionibus”.

Muslim savants, and astronomers attached at Ptolemy’s model, they translated his book "Mathematical Treatise" to Arab renaming it as the al-kitabu-l-mijisti, later latinazed to Al Magest, developing positional astronomy and math but they could no go further than that.

Please get this lines out of this article on behalf of the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge Ianis (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If the facts are accurate as stated, then I second the motion. Nihil novi (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ok I cut it out and paste it here for futher comments or citations Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before J8079s (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent date formats

When the block on this article expires, the date formats in the article should be made consistent. The article uses a combination of D MONTH YYYY and MONTH D, YYYY formats. There are also appearances of both A.D./BC and CE/BCE designations. If any of the editors of this page use automated editing tools (I don't know how), this would be a good application for them. Finell (Talk) 20:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Change for first sentence of this article.

Currently, it is this:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.

---

Copernicus was not the first person to propose the idea of a heliocentric universe. Aristarchus had come up with the idea in ancient Greece long before, but the teachings of Ptolemy had been dominant for 1,300 years. Ptolemy claimed the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all the planets (including the Sun and Moon) were attached to invisible celestial spheres that rotated around the Earth.

So I propose that it be changed to:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was not the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe, Aristarchus, a Greek astronemer, was the first, but the teacahings of Ptolemy had a lot more attention. Copernicus was, however, the first one to get noticed saying the sun was the center of the solar system. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.

---

Source: Thomsan Gale Resource Center http://find.galegroup.com/menu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.178.94 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the lead could be improved, and that it would also be appropriate to touch upon Aristarchus's exposition of heliocentrism—but possibly just in a footnote. However, I don't agree with the alternative wording proposed above.

We have very little information about the details of Aristarchus's proposals, but what little we do have suggests that there were huge differences between them and the system developed by Copernicus. Archimedes' description of Arisarchus's work indicates that it provided no more than an outline of the hypotheses that the Sun and fixed stars were motionless and that the Earth moved in a circle around the sun. All the indications are that he did not develop—as both Ptolemy and Copernicus did—a comprehensive and empirically calibrated description of the motions of the heavenly bodies (see pp. 135–148 of J.L.E.Dreyer's History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, or pp.38–39 of C.M.Linton's From Eudoxus to Einstein, for instance). Dreyer (p.140) also cites a passage from Plutarch which suggests that Aristarchus may have proposed the motion of the Earth not as a physically real phenomenon, but merely as a counterfactual supposition to "save the appearances".

I have always assumed that the purpose of the words "scientifically-based", currently appearing in the lead, were intended to draw a distinction between Copernicus's system—which made precise, quantitative predictions that could be compared with empirical observations—and those, such as Aristarchus's, which (very probably) didn't. Nevertheless, this wording doesn't seem to me to be very well-chosen—even if Aristarchus's theory couldn't make precise quantitative predictions, I don't see why that should necessarily exclude it from being described as "scientifically based". Nevertheless, I believe the lead should draw a sharp distinction between the comprehensive theory developed by Copernicus, and the apparently rudimentary one put forward by Aristarchus. I suggest a wording something like the following:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmological system that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.^[1]

—with the footnote saying something like:

"1. A Greek mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, had already outlined the basic hypotheses of a heliocentric system in the third century B.C.E. However, there is little evidence that he ever developed his ideas beyond a very basic outline."

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (Columbia University Press, 1983, p. 42, "Aristarchus of Samos") says: "He is supposed to have been the first to propose a heliocentric theory of the universe, anticipating Copernicus by 18 centuries... His only surviving work, On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, is celebrated for its geometric argument, even though crude observation data led to faulty estimates." This is compatible with David Wilson's general argument, above. Nihil novi (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now amended the lead along the lines I suggested above.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Górecki

Górecki composed his second symphony about Copernicus, can we mention sth in any place? OboeCrack (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is now listed in "List of things named after Copernicus," referenced under "See also." Nihil novi (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Predecessors on the motion of the Earth

If a predecessor maintains the Earth moves, that is not enough to say they held a heliocentric view. As most of us know, the Earth moves in more than ONE way - it rotates around its axis AND it revolves around the sun - it wobbles as it rotates and also moves with the solar system within the galaxy & with the galaxy itsef outward from the Big Bang. A predecessor saying the Earth moves could be hypothesizing any one of these motions - but is most likely to be about the rotation--JimWae (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that Archimedes clearly attributed heliocentrism to Aristarchus, but for all these predecessors, sourcing is needed. According to the Aryabhata article he believed in a geocentric model in which the earth rotated --JimWae (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One way Copernicus differed from his predecessors - which I do not see in article yet. Copernicus did not propose heliocentrism as just an alternative hypothesis. He considered the geocentric view to have serious problems in predicting the motions of the celestial bodies. The geocentric model was not working, the calendar of moons & Easters could not be prepared far ahead of time - and chartingthe planets required hypothesizing motions in strange ways - epicycles and such. --JimWae (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He argued that if the moon (and Mercury & Venus) shines by reflected light & were "lower" than the sun, then it would never appear to be full. He was able to explain apparent retrograde motion of planets without adding motion around epicycles. He calculated pretty well the orbital period of all planets then known (they were neither 1 day, nor 1 year)--JimWae (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems were soon found with his determination to preserve all celestial motion as being circular & with his preserving the Earth as the centre of all gravity--JimWae (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear JimWae: please provide a full citation of your source for your quotation from Archimedes, including the translator, edition, and page; there are wide variations in translations from Ancient Greek, including some that affect meaning. I added some blank parameters for {{Cite book}} to guide you. Also, please provide a full citation for Tassoul book, including page number(s), not just a wev link. Luckily, there is a paginated PDF of Chapter 1 linked to the Web page. I suggest you use {{Cite book}} for the sake of comleteness and consistency of form; you can put the URL of the PDF in the URL parameter. Thanks.

Is anything known of Aristarchus' heliocentrism other than the one paragraph by Archimedes? A source cited in the article says tnat Aristarchus' hypotheses were not developed. I am editing the article accordingly.

On April 21, I added tags requesting citations for several unsourced statements about Copernicus's predecessors. If sources are not provided in the near future, I intend to delete the unsourced statements. Finell (Talk) 01:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The original source of the quotation from Archimedes is Thomas Heath's Aristarchus of Samos—which I have just checked personally. However, a couple of minor inaccuracies in the quotation, as it now appears in the article, indicate that it has simply been copied across from the one on Aristarchus. While the quotation certainly seems appropriate for that article, I would strongly question its appropriateness for this one—it seems to me to be far too much unnecessary detail on a point of marginal relevance. I shall correct the quotation, but unless a consensus develops to keep it in the article, I shall refrain from spending the possibly superfluous effort of adding the complete citation.

There are various references to Aristarchus's work in ancient writers, but apparently none of them contains any more detail than is given by Archimedes. In fact, according to one of the references currently cited in the article (Linton, 2004, p.39), it's likely that all known references to Aristarchus's theory have been derived from this single passage in Archimedes.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a complete citation to the Heath translation, including the page number(s)? I believe that the article on Aristarchus also needs the full citation. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I deleted the statement that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "takes a more nuanced stance" on Copernicus's nationality. In fact, it takes no stance at all. A sample of that encyclopedia's article's on people shows that it generally does not attribute nationalaity. This issue arose a long time ago with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the decision was to delete the statement for the same reason. Finell (Talk) 02:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the deletion of the statement "takes a more nuanced stance", but I reinserted their conclusion 'Thus the child of a German family was a subject of the Polish crown.'. This is a good example of how the nationality issue can be wrapped up in a single sentence. For not so good examples, it's quite interesting how Encyclopædia Britannica has changed its stance between 1878 and 1911, while Poland has seemingly not changed at all between 1473 and 1846:

• COPERNICUS, or KOPPERNIGK, NICOLAUS (1473- 1543), was born on the 19th February 1473, at Thorn in Prussia, where his father, a native of Cracow, ... 9th edition from 1878
• COPERNICUS (or Koppernigk), Nicolaus (1473-1543), Polish astronomer, was born on the 19th of February 1473, at Thorn in Prussian Poland, where his father, a native of Cracow, ... 11th edition 1911
• HENRYK SIENKIEWICZ (1846-), Polish novelist, was born in 1846 at Wola Okrzeska near Lukow, in the province of Siedlce, Russian Poland.[31][32]

-- Matthead  Discuß   10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"his relationship to famous families"

Through the Watzenrodes' extensive family relationships by marriage, the future astronomer was related both to wealthy burgher families of Kraków, Toruń, Gdańsk and Elbląg and to prominent noble families of Prussia: the Działyński, Kościelicki and Konopacki families. Indeed, very famous "Prussians": Działyński, Kościelicki and Konopacki. And so utterly relevant to this article which is still a Polish nationalistic mess, thanks to relentless Polish edit warriors like User:Radeksz and Jacurek. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks O.K. ? The line is perfectly fine and sourced.--Jacurek (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I believe you've been warned before about incivility, calling people edit warriors or misrepresenting your edits as "rvv" when in fact it's removal of sourced info.radek (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody provide rationale why those families are included here, indeed? M.K. (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

M.K. have you ever edited this page before? No, you did not. Hope you are not just tracing Radeksz around because of your previous disagreements with him. I hope you are looking for an answer. Now, to answer your question ...the problem here is that there is a dispute as far as the nationality of Copernicus and some editors just don’t like this line because it is too much “Polish”. Unfortunately, (to them) the information is sourced and it is true.--Jacurek (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Before making such "useful" comments as M.K. have you ever edited this page before? No, you did not. look at page history, next time. M.K. (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed you when I was looking, you did make 4 edits. I'm taking that back.--Jacurek (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making irrelevant comments about me or other editors provide reasonable rationale for that material, personal-related explanation like some editors just don’t like this line because it is too much “Polish” is not that I looking for . M.K. (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you provide reasonable rationale why this sourced material should not be here instead of attacking me?--Jacurek (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, would not comment on last part of that comment of yours. M.K. (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple. It is sourced and useful information.--Jacurek (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you may see, some editors disagree with that info of being "useful". M.K. (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One disagree, are you ?--Jacurek (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I need more info on that in order to make judgment of that info being useful. That is way I asking for reasonable rationale (yet failed to get). M.K. (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is closely related to whether Copernicus should be regarded as a Pole or as a German. As you can see this information (sourced and true) has been deleted by a German editor who instead of explaining the removal initiated personal attacks (edit warriors etc.). I don't think that he was editing in a good faith and that his edits are neutral here. Now.... (sorry that I have to tell you that) but honestly .. I don't believe that you are going to be totally unbiased here either simply because of your record of disagreements with Radeksz. I may be wrong of course...just being honest.--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop discussing editors, I asked very specific question, and I expect to receive an answer without speculations on other editors. I see no point how not including or including those "famous" families makes Copernicus German or Polish. It is said that Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas is distant relative to the Queen Elizabeth II, but we not starting to insert such trivia in article. So I asking once more time that is rationale to have those families listed here. M.K. (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

... and I see a huge point here. Sorry that you don't..--Jacurek (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jacurek's probably right about MK's motivations here, but to answer MK's question, those families are themselves notable. The fact that Gedimin is distantly related to QEII is also notable and maybe or may not belong in the appropriate articles - that depends on how much "distance" exactly we're talking about. But Copernicus was pretty CLOSELY related.radek (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two of the Konopackis for example were Bishops of Chełmno during the period and that makes them notable, even if their particular articles haven't been written yet.radek (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dzialynskis were voivode's of Pomorze and even got a palace named after them in Poznan.radek (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source (non Polish, in fact) which notes that these families were indeed "famous" and notable in Prussia, as they formed a good chunk of Prussian political elite: [33]. Unfortunately, the names of these families sound too Polish, ey?

If you just type "Konopacki Copernicus" into Google books: [34], you get quite a number of sources which discuss Copernicus' relationship to the Konopackis. Same for Dzialynskis [35]. For Kosicieleckis it's a bit harder, but it's definitely there in Polish language sources: [36]. Basically, many biographers of Copernicus felt it important enough to discuss his connection to the Prussian nobility which compromised the Prussian political elite of the period. That should be enough to include it here.radek (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

Dear Matthead: To be fair, the German edit warriors have been every bit as relentless as the Polish ones. The quality of this article suffers as a result of edit warring by both nationalistic POV-pushing camps. Finell (Talk) 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Stars attached to a crystal sphere?

No way. For a compelling argument that Copernicus did not believe this, see [37]. Will someone fix this? Thanks. --Anscombe (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear that there is anything to fix. Copernicus used Celestial Spheres in his title, which at the time had the connotation of the ancient crystalline spheres; if Copernicus did not mean this, he would have made the distinction clearly in his text. Further, the article you cite expressly recognizes that the leading authorities on Copernicus agree that Copernicus accepted the idea of crystalline spheres. More generally, it does not diminish the significance of Copernicus or his revolutionary heliocentric theory to acknowledge that Copernicus modeled his work on and genuinely praised Ptolemy, that Copernicus erroneously placed the sun at the center of the universe (he expressed no notion of a solar system limited to our tiny region of space), and that De revolutionibus retained a good deal of medieval and ancient doctrine and style: that the planets orbits had to be spherical for philosophical and theological reasons despite observations to the contrary, and the use of some epicycles to "preserve the appearances", for example. Copernicus played a major role in beginning the Scientific Revolution; it would be asking to much to expect him to arrive at a fully modern theory—without a large body of accurate observations, and with no understanding of the physics—in when he wrote. Finell (Talk) 11:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While there is a lot of disagreement on this talk page, I think we can agree that this article here is his biography, and De revolutionibus covers his main astronomical work. I'd prefer to have the scientific discussions over there, and limit the dispute on the national claims to the biography here. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matthead's comment. If anything there is already too much detail in this article about De revolutionibus and heliocentrism, and therefore too much redundancy. Finell (Talk) 20:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundency among articles; plan for improving this one

This topic is inspired by Matthead's comment and my response to it in the preceding section. There is far too much redundancy (1) among the several Copernicus-specific articles in Wikipedia and (2) between those articles and other articles that discuss Copernicus' theories (e.g., Heliocentrism). Probably, some of the Copernicus-specific articles should be merged and others deleted. Reorganizing these articles and reducing redundancy would be a major project, and I have neither a specific proposal to offer nor the time to try to formulate one.

Here is an even broader request for proposal: We could use an outline for a program to improve this article on matters other than nationality (there is nothing to be gained by further discussion of that issue, as the last several years of discussion has proven). I'll suggest 2 areas for improvement: (a) Adopting a consistent style for citation of sources (using templates is probably the best way to promote consistency) and completing incomplete citations; (b) improving the article's layout, which would include reorganizing the images and possibly eliminating some of them (I did a bit of that in my last round of edits). Maybe that's 4 areas instead of 2.

Would anyone else like to take on either of these projects? Finell (Talk) 20:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Islamic origins and sources from At Tusi And others

[38]

The following documentary makes notes regarding the origins Faro0485 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Many Germans and most Poles"...?

Re this edit by Jacurek, changing "some Germans and Poles continue to regard him..." into "many Germans and most Poles continue to regard him...". I think there's no disagreement about "most Poles", after all, Poles are spoon-fed Kopernik polskim astronomem był right from the cradle. But what about the Germans? How many is "many"? Most Germans have no clue who this guy even was, let alone what his "nationality" was. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In Poland most people (%99 in my opinion) if not all, regard him as a Pole. They teach this in schools. Not sure about Germany...--Jacurek (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not sure about Germany" - if you're not sure why do you write "many"? This strikes me as vague and speculative. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that many but not sure how many. Change it back to "some in Germany" then if this bothers you so much. This needs to be sourced anyway.--Jacurek (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find some sources when I get a chance.--Jacurek (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, it doesn't really bother me. In fact, I welcome your change, as it makes clear that in Germany, less people know/care about Copernicus than in Poland. However, using a word like "many" (as opposed to "most") simply begs for sources - and I'm not sure such sources exist. :( --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea I know, I was looking for something last night but could not find anything appropriate. I know for sure that in Poland people regard Copernicus as their own, because I lived in Poland. Polish schools teach that "Kopernik" was Polish and they point out that the German Nazis attempted to "make him a German" etc. and that the Germans left his statue in Warsaw untouched as opposed to everything else they destroyed. I will keep looking for some source later, maybe I will find something..--Jacurek (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless absent sources. If Polish schools teach that Copernicus was Polish, it must be in Polish textbooks. Look harder; ask others who would have the information (relatives in Poland, perhaps?); ask a research librarian. Finell (Talk) 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Finell, thanks for your outside view. However, this isn't really the point. The fact that Poles consider Copernicus a Pole (whose Polish identity must be "defended" against German claims), is not disputed by anyone. Asking for sources to prove that this is taught in Polish schools is a bit like asking for sources that Earth moves around the sun. The discussion between Jacurek and myself was strictly about the different degrees of interest in and emotional attachment to Copernicus as "one of us" on either side of the Polish-German border. Unfortunately, this problem can't easily be solved by references to textbooks (which might even violate WP:NOR, as the textbooks would serve as a primary source in this context). --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I very strongly expect that you are correct about these facts. However, the long, sharp, divisive debate over nationality and ethnicity issues in this article shows that facts are in dispute and that POVs are involved. Therefore, statements on these subjects should be supported by reliable sources. Unsourced material can be removed, and I will continue to challenge unsourced statements on these issues evenhandedly, including both pro-Polish and pro-German statements. So far as I know, I have no Polish or German ancestry. My interest is that the article be accurate, well sourced, and comply with the WP:NPOV policy. Citing textbooks that explicitly state that Copernicus was Polish would not be original research. The OR problem in using primary sources arises only where editors attempt a synthesis of information from primary sources, inferring conclusions that a reliable source (secondary or primary) does not state explicitly.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with individuals, including Wikipedia editors, having POVs; to the contrary, there would be something wrong with someone who has none. The policy of WP:NPOV applies only to the content of Wikipedia, not to Wikipedians.

Why do you refer to mine as an "outside view"? Finell (Talk) 02:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Finell, "divisive debate over nationality and ethnicity issues in this article shows that facts are in dispute" - yes, you're stating the obvious here. That there has been a dispute is the fact to be discussed in this section. So we're having a meta-discussion here; if there is a dispute, it is a dispute about another dispute. :) That's why textbook citations that would be perfectly OK on the first level may function as original research on the meta-level. There's nothing wrong with quoting textbooks; but comparing textbooks and drawing conclusions from the comparison that are not, in turn, backed up by literature is original research, which is exactly what you say. (Incidentally, there is a separate dispicline called "textbook research" [39], and the discussion of what should be in textbooks has been the subject of Polish-German comittees for decades...) In the present case, there is no reasonable doubt that Copernicus's supposed Polish identity is way more important to Poles than his supposed German identity is to Germans (even though the article's history may suggest otherwise). The problem is, as far as I'm aware, that this difference hasn't been studied yet, so anything we could say about it, would be original research. At the same time, ignoring it altogether by implying that Germans and Poles are equally involved in this "struggle" would obviously be a mispresentation of reality. That's our dilemma here.

"there is nothing wrong with individuals, including Wikipedia editors, having POVs" - there is a lot of truth in that statement. However, unfortunately, it often gets cited by POV pushers or people who defend them, arguing that trying to adopt a neutral attitude is not necessary or even not possible. Also, I reject the notion that everybody inevitably has a POV about everything. "So far as I know, I have no Polish or German ancestry." This makes you a very welcome contributor to this article. However, as I said, this doesn't imply that anyone with Polish or German ancestry is inherently biased on this topic. You can be Polish or German and be fully aware that this struggle is futile because "being Polish" or "being German" means something quite different today than it did in Copernicus's lifetime. Unfortunately, Wikipedia happens to attract a lot of people from both countries who just don't (or don't want to) understand this. "Why do you refer to mine as an "outside view""? Firstly, for exactly the reason you mentioned - you are neither Polish nor German, so you are probably less passionate about this than some of the Polish and German editors here, which is a good thing; secondly, because you haven't been involved in this discussion so far (as far as I know). --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus and Nazi Germany

Edits like this one contribute to the notion that making national claims to Copernicus was evenly distributed across Poland and Germany, and perhaps more typical of Germany than of Poland. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the dispute on Copernicus's "nationality" is a prime example of asymmetric controversy. Nihil novi's other edits (such as this) indicate that a curious phenomenon seems to be at work here: Making claims while putting the blame for making claims at one's supposed opponents' doorstep... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the article's assertion that Nazi Germany claimed Copernicus to have been "purely German," we still await an authoritative citation for that statement; if it is false, I hope to see it deleted. As for the Poles, I doubt that they may be said to claim him to have been "purely" anything. And many persons of German extraction have contributed to Polish learning and culture.

As to the theft or destruction of the mid-16th-century portrait of Copernicus by the Germans during World War II—is Thorsten1 denying this fact? Nihil novi (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Regarding the article's assertion that Nazi Germany claimed Copernicus to have been "purely German," we still await an authoritative citation for that statement; if it is false, I hope to see it deleted." "Nazi Germany" as such certainly didn't "claim" any such thing, although it should not be surprising for anyone that Germans were more eager to emphasize C.'s "German-ness" then than they are now. "As to the theft or destruction of the mid-16th-century portrait of Copernicus by the Germans during World War II—is Thorsten1 denying this fact?" Thorsten1 is neither denying nor confirming this fact, Thorsten1 merely thinks it's instructive that Nihil novi considers it relevant to this article. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps about as relevant as the fact, also mentioned in the article, that Copernicus' library was "carried off as war booty by the Swedes during the Deluge and is now at the Uppsala University Library." At least the Swedes preserved their prize and make it available to the world's scholars. Nihil novi (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the respective historic relevance of the portrait and the library to "the world's scholars" is open to debate (not one I'd care to join, though). Having said that, there can be no reasonable doubt that "the" Swedes are nobler creatures than "the" Germans, even if they don't attain the amazing moral nobility of the Poles. ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to detract from your cogitations about the respective ethical merits of various peoples: the information on the World War II fate of the Copernicus portrait was made necessary by the surviving black-and-white reproduction—Wikipedia readers, if they are interested, have a right to know why the portrait is black-and-white rather than in color. (The information is relegated to a footnote.) Nihil novi (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nihil, first off, I really appreciate that you're addressing me in the second person. ;) "Not to detract from your cogitations about the respective ethical merits of various peoples" - Obviously, these are strictly my cogitations about your underlying cogitations about the respective ethical merits of various peoples, as reflected by statements beginning with, e.g., "At least the Swedes..." Personally, I don't believe in any differences between the "ethical merits of various peoples". ;) "Wikipedia readers [...] have a right to know why the portrait is black-and-white rather than in color." Of course, many readers will have been vexed by this question. ;) "The information is relegated to a footnote." Yes, after you initially placed it in a more prominent position, in a totally unbiased effort to explain the picture's mysterious black-and-white-ness... :D BTW, wouldn't the German denial of Copernicus's Polish identity, and the theft of this portrait in particular, make an excellent addition to Anti-Polish sentiment? Just asking. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated category?

Is there a need for Category:Nicolaus Copernicus? It is a red link in Category:Works by Nicolaus Copernicus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Osiander's interference

The article's failure to mention the addition of an unauthorised introduction by Andreas Osiander to De Revolutionibus was a serious deficiency that has now been rectified by a recent edit. The same edit, however, added statements to the effect that Osiander made other unauthorised changes to the book. While there are apparently substantial differences between the text of the first printed edition and that of Copernicus's manuscript, I have never before seen it claimed that Osiander was responsible for them. On a quick check of Michael Crowe's Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution, J.L.E. Dreyer's History of Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler and the Proceedings of a Symposium commemorating the 500th anniversary of Copernicus's birth ("The Nature of Scientific Discovery", edited by Owen Gingerich), I could find no support for the claim that Osiander was responsible for deleting any text from De Revolutionibus or for adding any text other than that of his infamous introduction. I have therefore removed those claims from the article. I suggest they should not be re-added unless some reliable source can be found to support them.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with "serious deficiency". While I had expanded De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in regard to Osianders foreword, I have not bothered to do so here, as we already have enough controversies here. This is the article on his life, which ended when the book was published. Details about De revolutionibus, including the process of publishing and the unauthorized foreword, and of course later reception of this work, should be discussed in the article about the book, not about the author. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason not to mention something as important as Osiander's intervention in the publication of De revolutionibus, in the "Nicolaus Copernicus" article as well. Nihil novi (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, on reflection, I agree that "serious deficiency" was a thoughtless exaggeration, which I have now amended. On the other hand, I most emphatically do not agree that mention of Osiander's preface should be confined to the article on De Revolutionibus. While that article does allow us to provide more detail about the book than would be possible in this one, it should not be used as an excuse for skimping on significant and relevant details merely because they may also be included in the former article. I would argue that Osiander's activities constitute such significant and relevant details about Copernicus's life and work that they should be included in this article regardless of whether the article on De Revolutionibus existed or not.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Osiander authorship is important, but I think that the brief description here and in the book article should more closely match what Osiander actually wrote. We don't really know that he was "saving appearances", whatever that means, or just expressing his opinion. He does not actually say the rest of that sentence either. Roger (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While Osiander did not specifically use the expression "saving the appearances", what he did write, however, included the following:

"For this art [i.e. astronomy], it is quite clear, is completely and absolutely ignorant of the causes of the apparent nonuniform motions. And if any causes are devised by the imagination, as indeed very many are, they are not put forward to convince anyone that [they] are true, but merely to provide a reliable basis for computation. However, since different hypotheses are sometimes offered for one and the same motion (for example, eccentricity and an epicycle for the sun’s motion), the astronomer will take as his first choice that hypothesis which is the easiest to grasp. The philosopher will perhaps rather seek the semblance of the truth. But neither of them will understand or state anything certain, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.

Therefore alongside the ancient hypotheses, which are no more probable, let us permit these new hypotheses also to become known, especially since they are admirable as well as simple and bring with them a huge treasure of very skillful observations. So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it. Farewell." (Quoted from Calendars through the Ages website.)

This attitude towards the adoption of astronomical hypotheses is precisely what philosophers of the period meant by the expession "saving the appearances" (or "saving the phenomena"), and historians of science have commonly used it to refer specifically to the attitude adopted by Osiander in his preface When philosophers of the period said that that an astronomical theory "saved the appearances" (or "saved the phenomena") they simply meant that it accurately predicted phenomena which could be verified by direct observation". Or, as Osiander puts it in the above-quoted passage, it meant that the theory provided "a reliable basis for computation". In certain contexts, modern historians of science sometimes also use the expression "save the phenomena position" to refer to the attitude—as taken by Osiander in the above-quoted passage—that mathematically oriented astronomy was incapable of uncovering the true causes of the apparent motions of the planets, that it had no business trying to do so, and that the truth or falsity of its assumptions were immaterial, as long as it did in fact "save the phenomena" (see p.77 of Michael Crowe's Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution, for example). So your objections to the use of the expression in the article are groundless. Nevertheless, I also don't see any compelling reason why it must be used, and since it is a semi-technical term which even a well-educated reader might not be familiar with, it might be preferable to avoid using it.

Roger wrote:

"He does not actually say the rest of that sentence either."

Well, but neither does he actually say the sentences you have replaced it with either. Both the original and your replacement are paraphrases. I have no major objections to your replacement, but the specific phrases "may find different causes" where the translation has "if any causes are devised by the imagination", and "does not have to be the truth in some philosophical sense", while nothing like the qualification "in some philosophical sense" appears anywher in Osiander's text, are poorly chosen in my opinion. They seem to me to make it debatable whether your replacement is any closer to what Osiander actually wrote than was the original you have replaced.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the term "saving appearances". You obviously know much more than I do about this subject. I made similar edits to De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, where I also removed "Basically, the foreword contradicted the actual content and intent of the book." I don't see any contradiction. It is not clear whether Osiander believes in heliocentrism or not. He is saying that the book has merit regardless.

Elaborating on my objections, Osiander does not actually say that Copernicus has found a simpler way to do astronomical calculations. After all, Copernicius' method is not all that simple. The argument (indirectly expressed) is that he has a hypothesis that is simpler, and easier to grasp. That seems to me to be a better way of describing the merit in Copernicus' work anyway. Also, Osiander makes the point that there is merit in any method that gives reliable computations, even if it conflicts with what we think of as truth.

I guess I just don't see the Forward as being so denigrating towards Copernicus. Osiander makes a couple of completely valid philosophical points. They do not undermine Copernicus, but attempt to make the book appealing to a wider audience. Maybe it expresses views that Copernicus would not have expressed. But none of this is the slightest bit unusual for a book with a preface written by someone else. The only thing unusual is that the Forward is unsigned. (It was also unauthorized, but I don't know whether it was unusual for a publisher to solicit a Forward without the author's approval.) Roger (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger wrote:

"I was not familiar with the term "saving appearances". You obviously know much more than I do about this subject."

Unfortunately not enough to avoid making a hash of my hastily written explanation. The original version was sufficiently incomplete as to be misleading. I have now amended it.

Next:

"I guess I just don't see the Forward as being so denigrating towards Copernicus."

I'm somewhat puzzled by this remark. I can't see anything in the previous accounts of Osiander's preface which either said or implied that it was denigrating of Copernicus. Nevertheless, I agree that the article is improved by having it explicitly point out that Osiander was actually defending Copernicus's work.

Next:

"I don't see any contradiction."

"Contradiction" is perhaps not the right word. But whether you see it or not, it is a fact almost universally recognised by Copernican scholars (as far as I can tell) that Copernicus did not subscribe to the attitude described by Osiander in his preface. In my opinion, this should definitely be indicated in the article. Regardless of what Osiander's actual attitude towards heliocentrism may have been, when he wrote in his preface that:

"Therefore alongside the ancient hypotheses, which are no more probable, let us permit these new hypotheses also to become known, ... " (Quoted from Calendars through the Ages website.)

none of his readers—with at most a handful of possible exceptions—would have taken the words "ancient hypotheses" here to have included the then supposedly incontrovertible fact that the Earth was immobile at the centre of the universe. Copernicus, on the other hand, both in his own preface, and in Book I of De Revolutionibus made it quite clear that he regarded this supposed fact as very possibly false. He also:

• expressed the opinion that the possible falsity of this assumption might well be responsible for the failure of some observed celestial phenomena to match the predictions of the then prevailing astronomical theory;
• pointed out that if, instead, astronomical theory were to use true hypotheses as the starting point for its deductions it could not fail to give predictions that would be verified by observation; and
• suggested that the Sun was truly at rest at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth truly moved with a triple motion.

These opinions and suggestions are quite inconsistent with the attitude expressed by Osiander in his preface.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised at your interpretation of "ancient hypotheses". I thought that scholars at Copernicus' time were aware of heliocentric ideas of Aristarchus and Pythagorus, and that "ancient hypotheses" would include the idea that the Earth was at the center. If not, then what are the ancient hypotheses that Osiander is talking about? Roger (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See the immediately preceding paragraph of Osiander's preface:

"However, since different hypotheses are sometimes offered for one and the same motion (for example, eccentricity and an epicycle for the sun’s motion), ... "

Osiander was talking about the hypotheses of astronomy, which were the various mathematical devices which astronomers had dreamed up to try and make the predictions of their mathematical models fit the observed apparent motions of the planets (deferents and epicycles, movable eccentrics, equants etc.). The immobility of the Earth at the centre of the universe was not one of these, it was a conclusion of Aristotelian physics—a branch of philosophy, not astronomy. Until Copernicus came along, almost all mediæval and renaissance astronomers and philosophers (Nicholas of Cusa is the only exception I'm aware of), had accepted it as a fundamental fact of physics.

Unless I have made particularly poor choices of the sources I have read, all this is pretty well-accepted by contemporary historians of science (see, for example, the two references I have cited above—particularly pp.69-84 of Michael Crowe's book). This discussion has also now wandered off-topic—the talk page not being an appropriate place for conducting general discussions on the subject of the article. So unless any further questions you have are directly related to some proposed change to the article, I shall not be answering them here. I shall instead refer you to the humanities reference desk. If I believe I know the answers, and can find the time to compose a reply I shall do so there.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

David, back to your original point. The article on Andreas Osiander says, "He deleted important passages and added his own sentences which diluted the impact and certainty of the work." It cites a book by Stephen Hawking. Are you saying that this is wrong? Hawking is an authority on many things, but not this. I think that it should be removed unless there is a better source. Roger (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this would be more appropriate on the Andreas Osiander talk page. I have copied your query and replied to it there.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I regret to have initiated this dispute. Why do you all enjoy destroying everything what is not yours - in the name of some „evidence“ that only you judge reliable? The “book” is available, so get it, read it and you will decide to put back my text.Draganparis (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...and if you do not know what was the debate over „Saving the Appearances“, why do you think you can find out what this was by simple contemplation and without reading? And to say something like "does not have to be the truth in some philosophical sense" is plain nonsense. There is no philosophical truth in one or some other sense on one hand and, on the other, truth that is not philosophical. This is just ridiculous. Copernicus probably thought that his abstract concepts corresponded to the reality; Osiander insisted that the same concepts corresponded to what could be observed, irrespective of how the “reality” in fact was. The problem of how the “reality” looks like, what is behind the appearances, remains and we are even today not able to imagine what kind of answer would be satisfactory.Draganparis (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing facts in "Ethnicity and nationality"

May somebody please add these facts to the article?

1. Kopernikus mother tongue and colloquial language was German.
   
2. He wrote all his publications in Latin and German.
   
3. Scientists doubt that he even spoke Polish. They were unable to find any clue that he spoke Polish.
   
4. He grew up in Thorn, wich was a German town with German inhabitants. Thorn was a town belonging to the Teutonic Order.
   
5. He has studied German Law
   

I do not doubt that there are serious arguments to to attibute his Polish side. But these are significant additional clues that one can say he was German. In the last years there have been countless attempts by Polish nationalists to "polify" him, so please be neutral and add these facts.

After all I'd add a final comment and call him a German-Polish astronomer. -- 93.219.28.226 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These issues are contentious, so it would help if you provided good sources. Roger (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe somebody should also provide good sources for the contentious statements which are already in the article for quite some time now? Instead, well-sourced statements are removed. For example, the historic names of the towns have to be used, with modern Polish ones in parentheses. In that regard, the article plainly violates the well-known Gdańsk-Danzig-Vote for quite some time. Statements like "the future astronomer was related to wealthy burgher families of Kraków, Toruń, Gdańsk and Elbląg, and to prominent noble families of Royal Prussia: the Działyński, Kościelecki and Konopacki families" are embarrassing to Wikipedia and to the editors active here. I'm pointing it out once gain, but I'll leave it to others to clean it up, as I would get reverted anyway.-- Matthead  Discuß   11:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please point us to the Wikipedia guideline that says, in substance, that "the historic names of the towns have to be used, with modern ... ones in parentheses." Thank you. Finell (Talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Finell, how about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use_English? "If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally." During NC's lifetime, Prussian cities were almost exclusive inhabited by German speakers (and even Cracow had over 30% of Germans, and even higher % among merchants and at the university), and the cities held a different name than those imposed on them in the 20th century. The widely accepted historical English names for 16th century Prussian cities are the German names used in 19th century Prussia: Thorn, Frauenburg, Elbing, Danzig etc.

And Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, included in the header of this page, clearly states "use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945" and "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).". This had been violated many times in the article. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

quadrilingual polyglot?

This edit claims that "He used Latin and German, knew enough Greek to translate the 7th-century Byzantine poet Theophylact Simocatta's verses into Latin prose (Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 75–77), and "there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language" (Norman Davies, God's Playground, vol. II, p. 26). During his several years' studies in Italy, Copernicus presumably would also have learned some Italian." Well, we know beyond doubt that that he mastered Latin and German (BTW: any mention of German was erased from the article on Monetae cudendae ratio), and that he knew Greek. Some Italian is also plausible. But why Polish, and where's the "ample evidence" for that - if any? -- Matthead  Discuß   12:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Kopernik know the Polish language?

Kopernik left NO important document or work in the German language—almost all his works and documents were written in Latin, none in German (only some correspondence to German friends). But if it comes to his knowledge of the Polish language or lack thereof: first, his father was of Polish descent and lived in Kraków most of his life, so his primary language was Polish and he certainly taught his son to speak Polish. Second, Kopernik studied four years at Kraków's Jagiellonian University—and the language of instruction there in the 15th–16th centuries was Polish.

Another proof that he could speak Polish is that it was Kopernik who carried out the monetary reform in the Polish Sejm (parliament), and it was he who in 1526 personally invented the name for the new Polish currency—"złoty". Złoty is a Polish word meaning "golden". Kopernik also formulated the economic law that "Debased coin drives good coin out of circulation" and personally presented it to the Polish Sejm (his speech there must have been delivered in Polish, as Polish was the spoken language of the Polish Sejm). This law's written version was of course in Latin, as that was the official written language of all ethnic Poles and of the majority of Poland's citizens at that time. (Mikołaj Rey was the first Polish writer to begin writing poetry — or anything generally — in Polish, and Rey popularized Polish-language writing, instead of Latin, not before the year 1562, when he published his famous poem "Zwierzyniec".)

Another thing that demonstrates that Kopernik knew Polish is that for some time he was the administrator of the Warmia region—and Warmia was inhabited mainly by Mazurzy (Masurians), people of Polish descent who had been migrating to Warmia from Mazovia since the 13th century, when those lands had been conquered from the pagan Prussians by the Teutonic Order. The Mazurzy never underwent Germanization.

Finally, Martin Luther, an enemy of Kopernik and of his heliocentric theory, ordered the making and burning of an effigy bearing the inscription: "Stupid Pole-astronomer". Thus Luther clearly recognized Kopernik as a "stupid Pole"—whereas now Luther's countrymen seek to rewrite history and call Kopernik a brilliant German. Luther knew better (apart from the "stupid" adjective, of course).

The Polish monetary reform carried out by Kopernik was introduced in order to protect Polish coin and the Polish economy from debased German and Jewish coin; as always, Kopernik remained faithful to Poland--in this case, fighting against the economic campaign that the Teutonic Prussians were waging against the Kingdom of Poland.

I wonder why all these facts have been omitted from this article?

Also the Kopernik's monetary law ("Debased coin drives good coin out of circulation"") which was formulated between 1519 and 1526 and can be found in his work "Monetae cudendae ratio" published in 1526 - is often wrongly credited to an Englishman - Thomas Gresham (1519 - 1579), while in fact it had been for the first time formulated by Kopernik, when Gresham was still a child (he started working on it yet in 1519).

Even today this law is still called "The Gresham's Law" (sic !) - just see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Gresham's_law

Every serious historian should check who exactly invented this law - just read the "Monetae cudende ratio", which was published in 1526 - many years before Gresham - and then carefully compare both laws.

And finally two more things:

[quote] (BTW: any mention of German was erased from the article on Monetae cudendae ratio) [/quote]

Because it was originally written in Latin and spoken in Polish - as I wrote above.

So where do you see any mention of German necessary here?

[quote] Scientists doubt that he even spoke Polish. [/quote]

See the article of professor Iwo Pogonowski - most of arguments provided by me above are also included in his article:

http://www.snpp.pl/Falszywy%20Pieniadz%20Wypiera_14%20marz_Ekon.htm

http://www.pogonowski.com/main_pl.php?page=home_pl

Best regards!,

Peter558 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Mazurzy never underwent Germanization." Which didn't stop 90% of them from voting for Germany in their post-WWI plebiscite, of course. ;) "and nowadays Martin Luter's countryfellows try to rewrite history and want to call Kopernik the "wise German" - completely reversed." The guy is called Luther, not Luter; and as for his "countryfellows", no, actually, they don't. Instead, they just don't care. The most they do is point out that all this fuss about Copernicus' being Polish is nonsensical because being Polish meant something very different from what it means today, and wasn't mutually exclusive with being German in other respects. But you're welcome to go on trying to "prove" he was Polish - it's actually quite amusing to see people stagger around under the weight of the chip on their shoulder. ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thorsten!,

About reasons why the Mazurzy voted for Germany during the 1920 plebiscite I wrote quite extensively here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=8921&p=1335510

Every reasonable person would vote for Germany in such a situation, especially that Mazurzy were not so strongly connected with the state of Poland itself (but with Polish culture and language - yes). Still the German rule was better than the Soviet rule, don't you agree?

If it comes to the nationality of Copernicus and proving that he was Polish or Smolish, etc. - until the 19th century nationalities practically did not exist, but Kopernik was ethnically half Polish and half German, while simultaneously being a 100% citizen of Poland and a 100% loyal subject of the king of Poland. So Poles have got "more rights" to Kopernik as a person than Germans - no matter how "funny" it sounds. Of course I don't deny that Germans also have the right of being proud of Kopernik, but trying to "steal" him from Poland is funny.

We should rather share our history in peace instead of arguing, especially that both nations have got a lot of positive things in common in their history - as for example Norman Davies always repeats (and here I agree with him despite the fact that I do not like many other aspects of his books) -, and you probably don't even realize how big was the positive influence of Poles on the development of the German nation and inversely (these positive aspects are unfortunately always eclipsed by the very dark sides of our history - especially the partitions of Poland, Germanization and Hitler with his terror, + recently also Erika Steinbach and her organization - discussion about her is available here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&p=1348636). I believe there was recently a Polish exhibition in Berlin about the contribution of Poles in creating that city; you don't even realize how many famous buildings in Berlin were designed by Polish architects, and how much Poles have contributed in the past to Berlin's culture—and are still contributing.

PS: I have corrected the spelling of Luther's name, thanks for this valuable remark.

Best regards,

Peter558 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter558, if you have documentation for your assertions, you can introduce them into the article yourself. Just get your work proofread to avert any disparaging comments relating to English spelling, grammar or idiom. Nihil novi (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nihil novi, I will of course consider it but recently I don't have enough time.

Peter558 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Peter558: "Poles have got "more rights" to Kopernik as a person than Germans [...] Germans also have the right of being proud of Kopernik, but trying to "steal" him from Poland is funny." Thanks for illustrating my point so colorfully! I think the key issue here is that some people have a desire to feel "proud". This is not good for understanding history. As for German vs. Soviet rule, Hitler, Erika Steinbach, Polish architects in Berlin - all this has really nothing to do with Copernicus. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter558: Can you supply a citation for the quotation from Martin Luther ("Stupid Pole-astronomer")? If you have a source citation, that quotation would have a place in the article. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 17:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he can't—at least not one that's credible. The only comment of Luther's that reputable scholars ever refer to as mentioning Copernicus's astronomy is from his Table talk, a collection of remarks from dinner-table conversations recorded by his students. One widely quoted version from John Aurifaber goes:

'Mention was made of a new astronomer who wished to prove that the earth moved and went around, not the sky or the firmament or the sun or the moon. It was just as when one was sitting on a wagon or boat which was moving, it seemed to him that he was standing still and resting, and that the earth and trees moved by. "So it goes," [said Luther], "whoever wants to be clever must not be content with what any one else has done, but must do something of his own and then pretend it was the best ever accomplished. The fool wants to change the whole science of astronomy. But the Holy Scripture clearly shows us that Joshua commanded the sun, not the earth, to stand still."' Quoted from "Conversations with Luther: selections from recently published sources of the table talk.

Another version, from Anthony Lauterbach, apparently has the word "fellow" rather than the word "fool" at the beginning of the last sentence. No version, as far as I know, either mentions Copernicus by name, or assigns any nationality to him.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

it's not stealing when you tell the FACT that his mother was German, what makes him a German. And YES his father was a Pole so he was a Pole, but if you denie one or the other you're just lying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Torun

In the 14th century, members of the family had begun moving to Silesian and later to Polish cities: Kraków (1367), Toruń (1400) and Lviv (1439).

Well, Torun was part of the State of the Teutonic Order in 1400 and also in 1458, when K.'s father arrived. So we should either avoid the term "Polish" in the sentence or take out Torun. I think it's also necessary to mention the Teutonic State as Watzenrode's opposition against the Order makes only sense on the background of Thorn being ruled by them. My suggestion: In the 14th century, members of the family had begun moving to Silesian and later to cities in Poland like Kraków (1367) and Lviv (1439) or Toruń (1400) in the State of the Teutonic Order. (BTW, isn't it "had begun to move ..."? Native speakers help needed) HerkusMonte (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

works with copper or works with a dill?

"The Polish rendering is Mikołaj Kopernik; the surname means "one who works with copper",[7] which was his father's trade." possible , however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dill = http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koper_(ro%C5%9Blina) considering his medical education and that "nik" is popular ending in polish surnames one can also assume that " Kopernik" = koper+nik ="one who heals using dill" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.210.49 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

His father was in the copper trade, which is the source of the surname. Finell (Talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finell, your assertion is startling. Niclas Koppernigk (senior) may have also dealt with copper, but his ancestors hardly have taken their name from the 15th century merchant. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this then the proof that his father was from German inheritage? "Kopper" in the meaning of copper does not exist in Polish, but in German it meant precisely that at the time given. Why should his name be "dill" if his father dealt with the said copper. I read somewhere in polishforums.com that sometimes Copernicus signed as Kopperlingk - which would be then German professional suffix. In Wikipedia it is in the article about the Papasomething fraud - "...Carlo Malagola, in his admirable work on Urceo Codro showed that "Niccolo Kopperlingk di Thorn" had registered as a law student at Bologna in the album of the "Nazione Alemanna".

SO: The name was not the slavic "Kopernik" (later perhaps derived from the latin version to let the name sound slavic). Why should somebody write 1. Kopperlingk and THORN if the guy in front of him was Polish? SURE, you guys will say: He had to enroll in the German group as there was no Polish group. Yeah, and surely nobody would have realized that? No, he just said his proper name and the proper name of the town at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.93 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In the reprint by Leopold Prowe of the original German text written by Nicolaus Copernicus for his meeting at the Prussian Landtag in 1522 (shown here) Copernicus writes about the word Kopper or Koppfer (for copper) several times. Documents from Danzig also record the trade his father was in as Kopper (70.133.74.206 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

The German treatise on money is at German wikisource Denkschrift über die Münze. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Science or Technology?

Can Copernicus' theory rightly be called scientific? If so, what discovery of his would have moved him to place the Sun at the center of the universe rather than the Earth? In fact, his work produced a major improvement in the technology of the day, viz., Ptolemy's Cosmology. Copernicus' insight greatly simplified the method of mathematically fitting observational data using epicycles. The real scientific insight came when Galileo discovered that Jupiter had moons. That, coupled with the hint provided by Copernicus, led to the scientific conclusion that the Sun sat at the center of the universe and that the Earth was but one of several planets. What got Galileo into trouble was publishing his results without the imprimatur of the Catholic Church. The Church didn't care a whole lot one way or the other but it was on record as believing that the Earth was the center of God's creation and therefore the entire universe. Challenges to the Church's authority and policies were not tolerated. What kept Copernicus' book from being banned altogether was that it could be viewed as "just a theory" that didn't actually prove that the Sun lay at the center of the universe. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the discovery of Jupiter's moons was an important one, the further discovery that Venus had complete phases was also crucial in supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory. Iambullet (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency? -relentless- false claims of Copernicus’ supposed Polish citizenship

(came across this on discussion Nihilnovi)

Nihil novi, according to your edit ((Copernicus' use of the German language does not of itself make him a German astronomer, any more than it would make a German-speaking Swiss astronomer a German.)), you now have to remove all Polish categories from Polish-speaking 19th century figures, like Marie Curie, as they were subjects to the Russian, Austrian, Prussian/German monarchs, or emigrants to other countries. As there was no Poland for 123 years, there were no Polish citizens in that time,and thus no Polish astronomers or similar. The other choice would be to leave the Polish categories, and re-add German categories to German-speaking Prussians of the "Polish partition" (1466-1776), like Copernicus, Hevelius, Fahrenheit etc.. Please be consistent, pick one standard: classification according to ethnicity/culture/language, or by state/citizenship. The "everybody was Polish, always and everywhere" war cry should be left to Serafin and his sock army. -- Matthead  Discuß   05:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Marie Curie did not want to be a Russian citizen. Nothing suggests that Copernicus objected to being a Polish citizen or wanted to be a citizen of Germany—a country that did not then exist. Indeed, Copernicus defended his province of the Polish Kingdom against German attacks. Nihil novi (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihilnovi does not have a legitimate answer to Matthead’s question of consistency.

Instead Nihilnovi claims :

1.‘’nothing suggests that Copernicus objected to being a Polish citizen’’.

‘’’Nicolaus Copernicus was never a Polish citizen’’’ but a citizen of Prussia . Prussian citizenship (Jus Indigenatus) remained for all parts in common, also the borders of Prussia were guaranteed (and not to be lessened) . At the time that Copernicus would have been able to object anything, he was a citizen of the prince-bishopric of Warmia in Ermland, Prussia.

2. or wanted to be a citizen of Germany---a country that did not exist??????

3. Copernicus also ‘’did not defend the Polish Kingdom against German attacks’’. He defended the Prussian prince-bishopric of Warmia, which is situated in Ermland and was then ruled by an imperial prince- bishop against the Prussian Teutonic Order, who wanted to take or keep the overlordship over the bishopric. Copernicus did not defend against German attacks.

‘’’As long as relentless fallacies (as the ones by Nihilnovi and others) are fed to the public via Wikipedia, corrections are required’’’.Observing(70.133.64.127 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

his mother was German -> so he is German

his fahter was Polish -> so he is a Pole

-> So he was German and Polish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also wrong, his father was NOT Polish. His father lived in Krakow at a time, when it was a Hanseatic city with a large part of German burghers and German language craftsmen, as shown in the guild books from Krakow at that time. His father moved to another Hanseatic League city, Thorn in Prussia, where he married a woman from an established Thorn Patrician family and he became a (Thorn- Prussian) citizen (burgher) himself. There were Coppernigks already living in Thorn as well. (71.137.193.88 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

His name

Should we add his full name in both languages - Polish and German as in German and Polish Wikipedia ?! Here he remains under his Latin name.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC) The article states that Kopernik (Polish for Copernicus) means worker in copper. This would be incorrect in German, Polish and Latin. Copper in German is Kupfer, Polish is Miedź, and Latin is Cuprum. So in all three languages Copernicus/Kopernik/Koppernigk would not mean worker in copper. But the Polish word koper means the herb "dill". So the origins of his name could be trader in dill. Dill is a favourite Polish herb, used extensively in Polish cuisine.Piotr-au (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Piotr-au (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr-au (talk Piotr-au (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) contribs) 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Piotr-au (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Piotr-au (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

please read answers, before you post more incorrect assumptions Kupfer is Modern High German, copper, coppar is Old German or Low German. Kupferschmidt is High German (English coppersmith) and Old/Low German, as recorded at Copernicus' time: coppersmede the references Copernicus wrote himself.

Answer is already here:

Nr 48 == works with copper or works with a dill? == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.193.88 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

contradiction

This..

"while studying canon and civil law at Bologna, met the famous astronomer, Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara. Copernicus attended Novara's lectures and became his disciple and assistant. Copernicus' published the his first astronomical observations, made with Novara in 1497, in De revolutionibus."

Contradicts this..

"However, unlike most other prominent Renaissance astronomers, he appears never to have practiced or expressed any interest in astrology.[9]"

24.38.156.102 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Astronomy versus astrology. --clpo13_(talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is from the Astrology page

"In fact, astrology and astronomy were often indistinguishable before the modern era"

From the modern era page

" Modern era started after the 1500s"

I stand by my original point. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be taken to mean that Copernicus was not interested in the astrological parts of astronomy (in other words, he may have been more concerned with studying the night sky for its own sake rather than for the purpose of reading meaning into the positions of the planets and stars, as his contemporaries were likely to do). I'm not entirely sure. --clpo13_(talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok but if your not entirely sure, is that not the exact reason the part about astrology should be removed from the article, because you would have to be entirely sure for it to be a fact, and therefore deserving of inclusion on the page, according to Wikipedias policy ?

24.38.156.102 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked this original citation Thomas S Kuhn - The copernican Revolution(1957) p. 93; and page 93 actually contradicts what the sentence in the article says, and confirms what Im saying..... it says "After 200BC , astronomy and astrology were linked inseparably for 1800 years " The only mention of Copernicus on the page at all is "European astronomers like Brahe and Kepler, who late in the Renaissance put Copernicus' system into something very modern like its modern form, were supported financillay and intellectually because they were thought to cast the best horoscopes." This citation is obviously faulty at best and fraudulent at worst.

Ill check into the others later but how do I get an admin or someone to at least remove that citation for now, since the page isnt editable ? 24.38.156.102 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is accurate as it stands. The fact that astrology and astronomy were linked historically until around the end of Renaissance does not mean that they were, or are, the same thing. English Wikipedia is written in modern English, so it will be understood by contemporary readers. Modern English distinguishes between astronomy and astrology. There is no historical evidence that Copernicus cast horoscopes or was otherwise interested in what is now called astrology. That was unusual for his time, because most of his contemporaries, even scientists, believed in astrology. It was taught in medical school because doctors of the time believed that astrology should be considered in treating patients. Science rejected astrology in the century after Copernicus; Kepler is sometimes described as the last great astronomer who was also an astrologer. Copernicus was an astronomer, but not an astrologist. If you find a reliable source that says that he practiced or believed in astrology, please bring it to our attention. —Finell (Talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IP I24.38.156.102 wrote:

"I checked this original citation Thomas S Kuhn - The copernican Revolution(1957) p. 93; and page 93 actually contradicts what the sentence in the article says, and confirms what Im saying ..... "

No it doesn't. Here is the relevant quotation from page 94 of the 1985 paperback edition, partially available online at Google books:

"It may be significant that Copernicus, the author of the theory that ultimately deprived the heavens of special power, belonged to the minority of Renaissance astronomers who did not cast horoscopes."

Note that the citation in the article was from the 1957 edition. Are you sure that's the edition which you checked? It is of course possible that I miscopied the page number when I added that citation, but I will check it over the weekend, and I will be extremely angry if I find that it does turn out to be on page 93.

It's also possible to check one of the other citations online. Here is the footnote in Sheila Rabin's article in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, where she writes:

"Given the facts that Copernicus's undergraduate and medical programs included a strong background in astrology and Copernicus's main publication was in the field of astronomy, his silence on the subject of astrology, pro or con, is deafening."

The relevant passages from Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read are:

"All the available biographical information on Rheticus reveals his passion for astrology. Curiously, there is not a shred of evidence that Copernicus had any interest in the subject." (pp.187–189)

"Nevertheless, astrology was part of the ethos of the times, and 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." (p.201)

Note that these are from the 2004 William Heinemann hardback edition. If you consult a different edition the relevant passages may be on different pages. In my William Heinemann edition the first crosses from the second to the fourth page of Chapter 12 (pp.187–189—there is an illustration on page 188). The second is at the very end of the same chapter.

Like Finell, and for much the same reasons which he gives, I fail to see any contradiction between the various passages cited from the article and Kuhn's book. However, I have managed to find a reliable source (F.E. Robbins's introduction to his translation of Tetrabiblos) which includes Copernicus amongst a list of Renaissance astronomers who "either practised astrology themselves or countenanced its practice". While this doesn't exactly contradict the statement made in the article—one can after all "countenance" a practice without actually engaging in it oneself, or expressing an interest in it—it does tend to suggest that Copernicus might have had a favourable attitude to astrology. In the interests of keeping the article's point of view neutral, I heve therefore added a brief statement on Robbins's opinion to the relevent footnote.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On checking a previous discussion of this issue, I see that I did there give page 94 of Kuhn's book as the page on which the above quotation appears. So it would seem that I did indeed mistype the page number when I added the citation. Just to make sure, I will still check the reference again over the weekend, but in the meantime, I have changed the page number in the article to what is probably the correct one (94). My apologies for the error.

I'll also check the Koyré citation too. Since it also gives a page number of 94, the coincidence leads me to suspect that I might have stuffed up that one as well.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that to me guys, and to David for adding the footnote and fixing the citation page. I surrender. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.38.156.102 wrote above:

"I checked this original citation Thomas S Kuhn - The copernican Revolution(1957) p. 93; .... This citation is obviously faulty at best and fraudulent at worst."

As it turns out, the only thing faulty about the citation was the inclusion of an ISBN number, which that edition does not seem to have. The page number was in fact correct, so I have since reinstated it. Unless IP 24.38.156.102 was relying on the ISBN number to identify the edition he or she consulted, then there could have been no reasonable grounds for making the above-quoted accusation. My citation of page 94 in the earlier discussion appears to have been to the 1959 Vintage Books paperback edition.

In my above response, I wrote:

"It is of course possible that I miscopied the page number when I added that citation, but I will check it over the weekend, and I will be extremely angry if I find that it does turn out to be on page 93."

Well, even though I did cite the correct page number, I can't say that I do now feel much anger about the above-quoted accusation. Nevertheless, not all Wikipedia's editors seem to be quite as phlegmatic as I am, and anyone querying a citation would be well-advised to make sure they are consulting the correct edition of the given reference before making such an accusation.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In view of this, some of my above remarks would appear to have been counterproductive. I have therefore refactored them.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

what did he do?

NIcolaus Copernicus was the man who had a theory that said that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun is the center of the universe and the earth revolves around the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.27.237 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he had a theory that said that Sun was the center of the universe, and that all planets, except Moon, go in circular orbits around the Sun. Incorrect but much more correct than all previous theories. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Genetics show Copernicus as German

Scientist now found out the genetic heritage of Copernicus which supports his german heritage. Is there a way to update the "Ethnicity" page? Here is the link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/07/y-chromosome-mtdna-and-eye-color-of.html

Kenaz9 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, that is not quite what the scientists say (at [40]). This is another source. He might have had blue eyes (so all images might be wrong, but the article has an explanation), and the genetic analysis is not in contradiction with assuming that his mother was of German heritage and his father from Silesia. We still don't really know his father's ethnicity Kusma (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"(and I really don't care about it). " The question is not whether you care its whether the information is factual and accurate. Does a random reader care,maybe. If you do not know the fathers ethnicity but it is confirmed the mother is german, then by default it should be agreed that his ethnicity is german. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This genetics stuff was about the most stupid I've read here. Every human geneticist and lots of others know that Northern Poles and Germans have virtually identical genetics. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Random walkers final statement

The guy was actually Polish, by citizenship and beside that a German-Polish hybrid himself, which in disaccord with common thinking, poses no genetical problems whatsoever. Maybe that was why he was such an obvious genius. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets of Serafin

For at least several months constant entries, Copernicus is/was POLISH astronomer see: Nicolaus Copernicus history May to Aug 17 2008

by: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin An Observer 18 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.192.221 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copernicium

Hello, can someone please correct the provisional symbol of this element to Cn rather than Cp? Ref: http://old.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract09/corish_pr112.pdf Thanks a lot Ytrepus (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The text on Ununbium (later to be Copernicium) is correct. Cn in the correct places and Cp in the correct places. Cp was the abbreviation proposal that failed, because it occurred to IUPAC that this was formerly used for Cassiopeium (nowadays known as Lutetium). ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

disturbing ultra-nationalist tripe

As a non-German and a non-Polish American, I was suprised to see that a man who has been dead for centuries is having his nationality fought over with such assinine vigor. The ethnicity of someone from that region that long ago is surely of mixed ethnicity (except we can probably safely rule out Inuit Eskimo); numerous diaspera from famine, plague, war/invasions, his ethnicity will likely be mixed and always subject to conjecture.

Hate to be flippant, but a German-American friend told me a joke about how Austrians always try to suggest to people that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Austrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.251.171 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this case is a little different because Copernicus is regarded by most as Polish, e.g.. all other serious encyclopedias list him as Polish but this one simply because of the nationalistic views of some editors. Anything is possible on Wikipiedia. Did you ever hear people warning others "Do not trust Wikipedia"? That is why. Copernicus may be German here, Hitler Swiss and Pope Italian.:)--Jacurek (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He is listed here as Polish because of the policies of Wikipedia: MoS (biographies), and No original research, using a huge set of external sources to see what nationality he has, not because of the random balance of fighting hotheads of Polish and German nationality. I'm a swede, and neutral between Polish and Germans, but I drink ale which is British, neither Polish nor German beer. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Being an American, what little I know of Copernicus I learned from history books and my 'go to guy' Dr. Carl Sagan from his 'Cosmos' PBS television series and he definitely referred to Copernicus as a Pole... Kepler was German and Copernicus was Polish that seems like a win win for everyone!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.251.171 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard, that Poles claimed, Kepler's ethniticy to be Polish. He lived a bit too far away from Poland. --Henrig (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead wrote on 27 June 2009: It was Niccolò Comneno Papadopoli, Italian librarian of Greek origin, who in 1726 published false claims, including that Copernicus had joined a "Polish natio" in Padua. Decades later, Poles started to claim Copernicus as Pole. Some Germans even echoed this before his biography became subject of proper research, and the historic facts became public knowledge. Present day Poles, up to government level, embarrass themselves and their nation by still desperately pretending that the German-speaking astronomer was 100% Polish.

In the time, when Poland has diappeared from the map, Polish patriotism grew to a high level and the Papadopoli forgery (not knowing, that it was a forgery) was likely highly welcome in this situation. Fact is, Poles made a lot of advertising in the world, to consider Copernicus Polish. This advertising was quite successful. --Henrig (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, this discussion is pointless. Issues like these are one of the main problems of Wikipedia. Please note that it took only few editors (usually German) to challenge the fact of Copernicus being Polish. The current status quo works even with this information missing. Readers can always refer to other encyclopedias such as Britannica if they curious about his nationality.--Jacurek (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Nihil novi (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive issues

Based on the request at WP:RM I have moved this back to restore the edit history. In looking at this I see that archives here are not always created in the normal way. So I'll be adding automatic archiving. This will eliminate the need to editors to have to guess how to archive the data and will keep this talk page at a reasonable length. Once the first archive run is complete, feel free to adjust the parameters to keep an appropriate amount of discussion in the active talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Will the links in the archive box be automatically updated as it is currently set up? I can't see any auto=yes parameter in it at the moment. As I understand the documentation, this parameter is necessary for the links to be automatically updated. Since the current version of the box appears to have been subst'd, I don't know the proper way to add this parameter to it as it stands. I have tried replacing it with the unsubst'd template, but then I couldn't work out how to change the background colour from its default to the colour that the box currently uses.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. But I suspect it's only the links labelled with numbers immediately below the image of the filing cabinet in the archive box that will be automatically updated. I presume the links labelled with "Talk x (date from - date to)" will still have to be updated manually, but at least in the meantime there will always be a navigable link to the latest archive.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David! —Finell (Talk) 06:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Commentariolus"

Information in the Commentariolus article differs from information in this article. Most strikingly, this article says that "Commentariolus" was distributed in 1514. The Commentariolus article says the date of publication is unknown. I do not have the sources. Could someone please check the sources, find the correct facts, and harmonize these two articles and others that discuss "Commentariolus", including Copernican heliocentrism. Also, there is some information about "Commentariolus" in this article that is not in the Commentariolus article; the Commentariolus article should be Wikipedia's complete treatment of that work. I'm posting the same message on the other article's talk page. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 10:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the sources please look into this? It is more important than arguing over images or adding information about monuments. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking really quick

• "Some time before 1514" [41]
• "First record of its existence ... early 1514" [42]

radek (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Commentariolus article cites Koyré as saying, "Some scholars believe Copernicus wrote 'Commentariolus' as late as 1533, because it describes the mature version of his theory." I found the passage in Koyré. Although it is in Koyré's chapter on the "Commentariolus", it is actually speaking about when Copernicus finished his first manuscript of De revolutionibus. I will conform the Commentariolus article to what this article says when I get a chance—unless someone else beats me to it. Thank again. (Thanks even more to whoever may beat me to it!) —Finell (Talk) 07:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Koyré makes the "Some scholars believe ... " statement in footnote 51 on p.85 (of the Hermann-Methuen hardback edition). However, he also goes on to establish that the circa 1530 date is now untenable, because a library catalogue of one Matthew of Miechow, dated May 1st, 1514, containing an obvious reference to the Commentariolus, was unearthed some time in the 1920s. I have amended the article accordingly, and shall do so to the Commentariolus article presently.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reading from the linked Google books page and the highlighted statement. Thanks again! —Finell (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of "assumptions" in "Commentariolus"

In the section on the "Copernican system", the Copernicus subsection lists "seven assumptions" from "Commentariolus". Is the article's list of these assumptions

1. A direct quotation from "Commentariolus" as translated in Rosen, including the numbers?
2. A direct quotation of Rosen's summary or paraphrase of the assumptions, including the numbers?
3. Wikipedia's summary or paraphrase of
   1. The "Commentariolus" text as translated in Rosen?
   2. Rosen's summary or paraphrase of the "Commentariolus" text?
4. Something else?

Also, is "assumptions" idiomatically correct here? Would in be more accurate to characterize them as conclusions, or as axioms or postulates? —Finell (Talk) 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, #1. I think it would be better to replace the verbatim copy from Rosen's translation with a summary. When I replaced an earlier, inaccurate list of asssumptions (said to be only 6) a couple of years ago with the current list, I think I had intended eventually to get around to doing that, but, like a lot of things I have intended to get around to doing on Wikipedia, I never did.

I don't see anything wrong with the word "assumptions" here, which is the one Rosen uses. I think "postulates" would also be suitable, but I don't think either "conclusions" or "axioms" would be. "Conclusions" would be outright misleading, and "axioms" today carries too much the connotations of being self-evident or obvious, which those propositions certainly weren't in Copernicus's time.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Finell (Talk) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

This article makes excessive use of foreign language sources. English Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, under the heading Non-English sources, states: "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." There are ample English language sources on Copernicus. It would be helpful to English Wikipedia's readers for editors to substitute English language sources for foreign language sources wherever possible. Thank you. —Finell (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity section

The "Ethnicity" section has little to do with ethnicity. Which side of a war some relative fought on have nothing to do with Copernicus' genetic heritage. The languages that he spoke and wrote have nothing to do with any definition of ethnicity. The material on Copernicus' parents should be consolidated with the article's first discussion of his family. Most of the section's content, perhaps even all of it, should be moved to other parts of the article. —Finell 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Nihil novi (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Most or all of the content is appropriate for other sections. --Piast (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Work Section

What would everyone think of making "Work" a major section like "life"? We could then have subsections that discuss Military, Medical, Church and Coin Reform career/accomplishments, then go into Heliocentrism, The Book, and Death as it is now? Right now the sections seems a bit overwhelming with the discussion of so many different topics - it seems like it could use some organization? --Piast (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Nihil novi (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, since his life did not end with his "education," why not just delete the "Work" heading and insert appropriate "Life" subsections for his military, medical, church, coin-reform, etc., activities? Nihil novi (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first idea. It might be a good idea for his astronomy to be a separate section, since it requires its own subsections. Also, all his other work involved his employment and duties, whereas astronomy was his avocation. —Finell 02:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How about retitling the first as "Early Life" and then having a Work section, followed by Astronomy? Let me know what you all think, I can make changes tomorrow or the next few days. --Piast (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, in my opinion. And fold all the material on the mother's and father's family, culled from the rest of the article, into subsections of early life? —Finell 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking - have (1)EARLY LIFE include everything currently under "Life," then have a new section (2)WORK (or career) with Church, Medical, Military, and Coin Reform as subsections. Then (3) HELIOCENTRIC THEORY with content including "Heliocentrism" and "the book." Question is what to do with Death - make it a fourth main section followed by COPERNICAN SYSTEM? Please let me know thoughts. --Piast (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would combine your 3 and 4 into one section called "Copernican heliocentrism" (which would also include all material from the "Copernicanism" section), with subsections for chronological periods, some of which are marked by his writings; I would start this section with heliocentric predecessors and the prevailing geocentric theory, then his study of and work in astronomy in his university years (rather than describing this under and education subsection beyond mentioning astronomy as one of his fields of study). In my opinion, it is most important to get across the main themes and importance of the astronomy work, but to avoid excessive duplication of what is treated in detail in the other articles (Copernican heliocentrism, Commentariolus, Narratio Prima, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium). I like your idea of calling the second main section "Career" rather than "Work". The first main section could be called "Early life" or "Early life and family". The article has needed a major reorganization for some time (related material is scattered among different sections), in my opinion, but I haven't had time to devote to it. And congratulations to Piast and Novi for the good reorganizing and editing already done. —Finell 07:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I can take the lead to try to tackle this during the week as I think it will be a bit of work but IMO much needed to get this article up to high standards as far as organization and readability. --Piast (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother's family

From Piast's new additions:

Copernicus' uncle, Lucas WatzenrodeNicolaus’ mother, Barbara Watzenrode, was the daughter of Lucas Watzenrode the Elder and his wife Katherine (nee Modlibóg).

The results by Google search say always nee "Von Rüdiger". But there was a noble family with the doublename "Von Rüdiger-Modlibog" in Copernicus hometown. An interesting question would be, if this name already existed in Copernicus time or if it was the result of a later marriage. --Henrig (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. However, I believe she was married once before prior to marrying Lucas the Elder - this may or may not be the Von Rüdiger. A local German historian, Gottfried Centner (1712-1774), wrote about the genealogies of Torun families and termed her a Modlibog. Koyre's research seems to have confirmed that. --Piast (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be settled in the major biographies of Copernicus. The Internet brings a wealth of information to our fingertips, but it is not a substitute for a library. —Finell 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, ADB and NDB are printed biographies, also available online (without the help of Google), just like Hans-Dietrich Lemmel in "Genealogie" Heft 1-2/1993. The NDB of 1957 says that NCs grandma Katherina Watzelrode, probably born Rüdiger, was the widow of Heinrich Peckau, who had been an alderman (Schöffe/Schöppe) in Thorn. Apparently, the statement that she was from a family "Rüdiger gente Modlibog" was made by Centner based on a genealogy he had received from a friend in Elbing. So this is a mere rumour, not backed up by any document from city archives in the 250 years that have passed since. While Polish bios still seem to assert a connection of "Modlibog" to the Rüdiger family, and thus to the astronomer, German sources seem to have stopped reminding of the lack of sources for that name. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the geneology mere rumor? Are there any English language sources available? I can understand why you may question as Polish source, but Koyre is quite respected and renowned for his work. --Piast (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are ample English language biographies, so these should be used. I believe that Rosen and Gingerich are the most respected authorities on Copernicus. —Finell 02:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not be using Polish or German language sources given how much has been written on the topic in English and that this is the English Wikipedia site. I've got a few Rosen books coming, I'll review those. Gingerich doesn't go into the genealogy - he just states unconditionally that he was Polish. You are right though - Gingerich is a great source with no "horse in this race" given he is neither Polish nor German. Interestingly, he sat on a committee of academics and astronomers who did various Copernicus study answering, among other questions, what nationality should be ascribed to the astronomer (Polish, which is the way he himself refers to Copernicus dozens of times in "The Book Nobody Read"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piast (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason such an elaborate genealogy is included in the article to begin with? A cursory look at other historical figures in science and math shows that there is no such space devoted to heritage for those figures. 24.193.91.80 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is "a specific reason", but it is not a good reason. The reason is that editors with pro-German and pro-Polish points of view lard the article's content with unnecessary mention of things Polish and German, either to "claim" Copernicus as one of their own or to deny the other nation's claim to him. It is a sublimation of centuries of mindless war, re-fought by anonymous warriors on their keyboards. For further details, if you like, you can pore over the article's edit history, the discussions on this talk page, and lots more discussions preserved for posterity in the talk page archives. If you do not have similar nationalistic intentions, you are welcome to try to improve the article.—Finell 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of heliocentrism

I would like to point out that Copernicus was actually not the first to "displace the earth from the center of the universe," as the official Wikipedia page of Nicolaus Copernicus says in the first paragraph. Copernicus actually found the idea from an unpopular Greek astrology theory and although never doubting the idea of Aristotle and astronomy up to Copernicus's day, he was interested with the idea and studied the possibility of the theory, actually proving it correct the year he died in 1543 by publishingOn the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Although Copernican ideas changed the perspective of astronomy to a solar (revolving around the sun) system, rather than the origional Aristotle hypothesis of an Earth centered universe, it's techinally not the first time the idea of a solar revolved system was invisioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlineTheChalk (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This history is already covered in the article, although improvement is always welcome. In terms of cultural impact, Copernicus initiated the re-examination and ultimate acceptance of heliocentrism, which according to many scholars marked the beginning of the scientific revolution. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Finell 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Voivodeship" and "Province"

The Polish term "województwo" really should be rendered on the English Wikipedia as "province." That is the most common English rendering for the major administrative divisions of most countries.

The only semi-rational justification that has been given for using the barbarism "voivodeship" or "voivodship" (there is not even consensus on how to spell the word) instead of "province" is that, until the completion of the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, the cognate Polish "prowincyja" (as it was then spelled) was idiosyncratically used to designate several still greater divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Royal Prussia.

That is hardly a good reason to saddle a modern country with an "English" term as odd as "voivodeship," in preference over "province." A disambiguation is secured easily enough by rendering "prowincyja" into English as "Region." Thus "województwo" is "province" ("Lublin Province"), and "prowincyja" is "Region" ("Royal Prussia Region")

The Polish "prowincyja" and the English "province" are what, in translation theory, are known as "false friends." The former, Polish expression should not be rendered into English as "province" but as "region." Nihil novi (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - change made. --Piast (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that Royal Prussia was legally not a part of the Kingdom of Poland until the Union of Lublin in 1569. Royal Prussia was reigned by the Polish King in personal union, but was autonom. Thus any reference to Turun/Thorn or Ermland being in or part of the Kingdom of Poland are at least misleading, if not outright wrong (just as any part of the Duchy of Lithuania at that time was not part of the Kingdom of Poland, or Saxony and Poland were different states under August). Following that line (without touching his cultural identity) one can claim that Copernicus was a subject of the Polish king, but not a citizen of the Kingdom of Poland.--ASchudak (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would Copernicus have inherited Polish citizenship from his father, who had moved to Royal Prussia from the Polish capital, Kraków? Nihil novi (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that "citizenship" of any kind was inherited, since that concept did not really exist at that time. Even today citizenship is rarely inherited to children if you move from one country to another. His father probably gave him Polish cultural background, though he did marry a wife from a German family and hold an office that was usually reserved for Germans in Thorn.

I think the difference between "Polish" and "German" at that time was probably a lot less important then it is today - at least in the upper classes were wealth or status defined who you were, not where your family came from. His well situated mothers family who took care of him after the untimely death of his father seemed to be part of the (German) upper class of Royal Prussia, where he spend most of his productive life. Anyway, after 1569 all these Germans (and Lithuanians, and other peoples) became part of the Kingdom of Poland and thus Poles, just with different ethnical background. If Poland today claims Kopernikus as part of its heritage, it is well within their rights and totally justified. To deny that Kopernikus lived within a cultural German society, however, seems to belittle that. In the 15th century Poland was able to integrate German groups (among others) into its society (one third of Krakows population at that time had German background), and its protection was sought after by that part of Prussia which is later called "Royal", for they acknowledged the Polish King as their King.

Neither exclusive claim, Kopernikus being German or being Polish, acknowledges this, and so either makes him, Poland, and the late medieval Europe smaller then they were.--ASchudak (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"totally justified"? Copernicus was about as Polish as Jesus was Italian - or less. In his own works, he often speaks of Prussia, but never of Poland. That lack of interest was mutual. The first 300 years after his birth, Poland and the Poles barely took notice of Copernicus, save for participation in the banning of his book. The Poles abused his altered name in jingoistic politicial campaigns of the 19th and 20th century. It is embarrassing for 21st century Poland to continue claiming a German-speaking person like Copernicus as "Polish" based on a 15th century alliance between Prussians and the Polish king. Also, the claim that the father Niklas Koppernigk may have been of Polish culture is very weak, too, as he definitively spoke German very well, unlike his contemporary Gregory of Sanok who as a young boy "came to Cracow to further his education and begin a career, but he found that doors were closed to him because he knew no German, the language of the city's urban and academic patriciate." [43] Koppernigk senior was a merchant who came from Cracow, a city with said high percentage of Germans among merchants, to Thorn, an almost exclusively German city. He became a citizen and served there as de:Schöffe (alderman), which required very good German language skills. All the minutes of the aldermen sessions are in German, and they are preserved, as they were stored outside of the townhall, which sadly burned down around 1700. The documents even occasionally mention Polish persons and names, which cleary distinguishes them from the local German Prussians. For example, Niclas Koppernigk in 1480 sold a house to the "polnische greger, dem korssner" ([44][45] "the Polish Gregory, the furrier"). It is proven that Copernicus, his parents, and his cultural environment spoke German, while there are only speculations about some basic Polish to deal with the Slavic minority of the rural population. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Totally justified" in the sense that Kopernikus DID live in an area that became later part of Poland, fought aside (probably in command of) Polish troops at one time and was a subject of the Polish King for his whole life. Why should Poland not claim a part of his heritage?

I also stated that Kopernikus lived in a German society for most of his life. So Germany claiming his heritage is also equally justified - if on another angle. Any side claiming him for their own alone and labelling him "Polish" or "German" without any qualifier are imho wrong. This includes such references in printed Encylopedias and Lexikas.

BTW: We Germans tend to claim Einstein as one of our own, too, when his cultural heritage was Jewish German, he dumped his German citizenship, travelled through Italy and then did most of his intersting work in Switzerland while having Swiss citizenship. There are numerous other examples which show that Europe produced a lot of great men by its shared culture. A contemporary of Kopernikus would be Karl V.--ASchudak (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Current text

The text currently says "Latin was...the official language of the Catholic Church". At that time and later, the official languages of the Catholic Church were Latin, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Old Slavonic, Syriac and Ethiopic. All seven were used in older forms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.36.65 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Would saying "Latin was... the predominant language of the Catholic Church" be more accurate? --Piast (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but our anonymous commentator may be objecting to using Catholic to mean Roman Catholic.—Finell 02:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is the neutrality of this article still under dispute? I don't see any coherent evidence on this talk page of a dispute, besides the usual nationalistic nonsense, and article seems to tread carefully enough here. Greenman (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the article's neutrality on Copernicus's nationality is still in dispute.—Finell 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? As I said, there's no coherent evidence of a neutrality dispute on this page, although I'm sure to those of you involved from the beginning the thread makes sense. I can see the edit history and the comments, but, specifically, which text (or image count, if that's the case) on the page is currently disputed as not being neutral? Greenman (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The nationality-related disputes still on this talk page, and in recent archives, have not been resolved. It isn't a word or passage here or there, it is the entire article's treatment of his nationality.—Finell 04:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just have a quick look at the Talk:Gdansk/Vote box in the header and then have a glance through the article. --Henrig (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Schadow's bust and Matejkos painting

I think, both works of art fit very well together with the impression of Copernicus glance at the sky in both pictures and in the sense of a little bit balance. Ironically both artworks are also childs of the 19th century with its national background. But both are brilliant masterworks! --Henrig (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The bust does not add to the aesthetic appeal of the article, nor does it contribute useful information to the reader. There are already too many images in the article, which disrupts the layout. Right- and left-aligned images in that section makes the heading look odd.—Finell 11:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to you, the images of no less than four Poland-based statues and two Polish 19th century paintings add to the aesthetic appeal of the article, while the single Germany-based bust doesn't. Well, at least the Polish coins and Polish banknotes and Polish stamps are left out for now. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Schadow is a world-renowned sculptor! But maybe some people also consider Michelangelo's David as unaesthetic. But this would be in both cases pure POV! --193.53.93.43 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell is right. Nihil novi (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Matthead: No, I don't think that "no less than four Poland-based statues ... add to the aesthetic appeal of the article". What I said was, "There are already too many images in the article", not "The existing images are all dandy, but this new one makes it one too many." I would prefer that the number of images be reduced. Please don't try to make this into some accusation of pro-Polish bias. I have no Polish ancestors and have never been to Poland. I have criticized (above) "editors with pro-German and pro-Polish points of view [who] lard the article's content with unnecessary mention of things Polish and German".—Finell 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

193.53.93.43 and Henrig: Images should enhance articles by adding relevant information. See generally WP:Images. Not every artist's depiction of Copernicus, or even every "world-renowned" artist's depiction, belongs in the article. (I do note that Schadow is not mentioned in Janson; Michaelangelo is.) This is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery.—Finell 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after my artistic fancy is Schadow's work the best and most felicitous bust of Copernicus, which I know, although it is naturally always difficult to compare various works of art which express different messages. Hence it's the best to compare works with respectively the same message. Regarding the information: Matejkos painting and Schadow's bust are very good illustrations of the 200 year dispute whether Copernicus was more German or Pole. See also my start posting in this section. --Henrig (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with with "whether Copernicus was more German or Pole". Editors adding one more Polish or German image (or quotation, book, honor, etc.), on the other hand, has everything to do with Wikipedia editors pushing their own nationalist POV, and the article's quality has suffered as a result for years. The latest addition of articles on Polish monuments to Copernicus, and adding those images to this article, are no better. If people want to improve the article, there are many productive things to do, rather than this cruft. As for the Polish painting, if you want to replace it with one of equal or superior quality by any artist who is neither German nor Polish, be my guest.—Finell 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Better read before writing. I called Matejkos painting a brilliant masterwork in the start posting. It would be a loss to replace it. There are better candidates. But as long as there is a dispute, both works together are excellent illustrations for it too. But I agree, it would be better to rewrite the whole article without claiming one nationality. But do you believe in it? --Henrig (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Heliocentrism

Hi ! I have noticed that Nicolaus Copernicus in this article is presented as the first to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. This seems true as he is the first to persuade the scientific community about heliocentrism. However I believe this sentence is misleading because the first person to (academically) present a heliocentric cosmology, placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the known universe is Aristarchus of Samos. Also in this article Aristarchus of Samos is noted only as a mathematician but he was also an astronomer and he made mathematical calculations about the distance Earth - Sun using astronomical observations . He used correct geometry - but insufficiently accurate astronomical data because he couldn't gauge precisely the lunar terminator. His results weren't as accurate as those of Nicolause Copernicus but he was the first to scientifically prove that the Earth and Moon are much smaller than the Sun and that the Earth - Sun distance is bigger than the Earth - Moon distance. Hence he concluded that the Sun must be at the centre of the known universe . So I believe we should change the first sentence of the article which is " Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the Earth from the centre of the universe.[1] " and underline that he is the first astronomer to persuade the scientific community about an heliocentric cosmology . Centuries before him ,others have formulated heliocentric cosmology. GreekAlexander (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in some detail. I disagree that the current first sentence and its accompanying footnote are misleading. The key word in the first sentence is "comprehensive", which—according to the sources cited—decisively distinguishes between Copernicus's and Aristarchus's expositions of heliocentrism; and the latter's contribution seems to me to be quite adequately and accurately acknowledged in the footnote.

The problem with describing Copernicus as "the first astronomer to persuade the scientific community about an heliocentric cosmology" is that it simply isn't true—or at least not verifiable from reliable sources—that he did so persuade the "scientific community". Until Galileo's telescopic discoveries comprehensively shattered the foundations of the the prevailing cosmology, and Kepler's reforms provided a sounder basis for the development of heliocentrism, there were never more than a handful of astronomers or philosophers who were persuaded by Copernicus's arguments to adopt a heliocentric cosmology.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, while I was adding "and astronomer" to the footnote, it did strike me that its wording could be improved, and so I've had a go at improving it.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nationality denied

The article is currently "avoiding" the nationality issue by claiming that he was born in "Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland". This is a good pattern that should be used in the rest of the article, he was "Royal Prussian Polish", although that "Polish" and "Prussian" had nothing to do with modern nationalities. Most of the previous debate debates whether he spoke Polish, German, Latin whatever. The current nationality concept emerged in the 19th century, so the language he spoke should have no consequence at all, since he was active in the 16th century, and was more like an old-style renaissance "European" (not a nationality!). Also: Modern Poland emerged in 1918 something, while the first democratic Germany emerged in 1919 something. Copernicus and friends would probably not give a d*mn about still unconceived future nations, and their petty nationality fights.

I think that we should consider removing the POV-template. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Or why not "Royal Prussian Imperial Polish"? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article, I realise it actually denies nationality as I wish, and that there are sourced citations denying the application of our modern flawed nationality concept. Restated: Remove the POV-template?? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP these people

Copernicus's family on both sides were PRO-CATHOLIC and against the Teutonic Knights. These are hardly German characteristics. Copernicus' family had Polish Catholic qualities NOT German pagan qualities. Also Martin Luther hated Copernius because he thought he was of Polish ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 700KFF (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At the time when Royal Prussia split from the Teutonic Knights there were nothing but Catholics. Being PRO-CATHOLIC before the protestant split is hardly surprising. Since the Teutonic Knighs were created as a religious order during the crusades, it is unlikely they had any pagan qualities. Actually at one time the Teutonic Order was called by the polish count Konrad I Mazowiecki to christianize the local pagan Pruzzians, which they later did, kept the land and founded the town of Toruń - a town that would later cede from the Teutonic Knights together with a couple of others and accept the Polish King as their own in personal union - forming Royal Prussia under personal union with the Polish king. The latter happened some 19 years before Kopernikus birth.

Anyway, when the Reformation spread into the region, the Grandmaster secularized the remaining state into the duchy of Prussia, and the Teutonic Order ceased to play a significant political role. None of these have any bearance on Kopernikus, but Kopernikus however DID take part in the monetary reforms of both Royal Prussia and the Duchy of Prussia, and created a map of the whole of Prussia. He seemed to have no problems to work for the protestantic Prussia once peace was secured.--ASchudak (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Its true that people in Copernicus' time and area were nothing but Catholics, but it was the Germans who overwhelmingly switched to Martin Luther's Prostentantism NOT the Poles. The fact that ALL of Copernicus' family were staunch Catholics while most Germans in the area were being swept up with the proud German Martin Luther's Prostentant religion shows Copernicus was all Polish. Also Copernicus' Uncle's German name means nothing since many Poles had German names and spoke German. Just like the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who had a German name, spoke perfect German but was ethnically Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 700KFF (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a dull nationalistic nonsense to think that someone who opposed the Teutonic Knights and was a Catholic has "hardly any German characteristics". What are these "German characteristics", by the way? There are uncounted numerous examples of German Catholics who prove the contrary. The City of Danzig, had a large German Lutheran majority at the time and had previously opposed the Teutonic Knights and supported the Polish kings who granted her religious and political autonomy. Why can't some people accept the simple fact that people in these time did not think in such primitive stereotypes? Copernicus' mother language was German and he was a Catholic and loyal to his souverain, the Polish king. Where is the problem? There were French Hugenots who served in the German Army, Baltic Germans who had high commands in the Russian Army, etc., etc., ... they and their contemporary fellows had no problems with this. --87.123.93.158 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What's even more dull nationalistic nonsense is an effort within the last 100 years by Germans to Germanize Copernicus. Its ironic since for hundreds of years Germans did not celebrate Copernicus while the Poles did. Germans during Copernicus' days were indeed just as charged up with their German nationalism as Germans here on wikipedia are with their German nationalism, that is prompting them to Germanize Copernicus.

The claim that Copernicus' mother had a German name and spoke German which therefore makes her German, is silly. It makes her no more German then "German" Philosoper Friedrich Nietzsche who spoke German but who's ancestry is Polish. Its no accident that Nietzsche adamantly claimed his ancestry as Polish since he imagined that Germans one day would try to Germanize his ancestry since he had the outward appearance of being a German since he spoke German. Just like Germans today are trying to Germanize Copernicus. Its interesting how the "Stanford University" that claimed that "Copernicus is the child of a German family" (A big lie) is the same Stanford University that refuses to identify Friedrich Nietzsche's Polish ancestry. German claims that Copernicus is "German" is as much a big lie as German claims that "Polish calvary charged German tanks". Germans have long felt that the more you repeat a lie, the more it will "be true". Like ethno-centric Germans are doing with their lies about Copernicus "being German". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 700KFF (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why can't the administrators put a BLOCK on this article and stop the endless nonsensical attacks, mostly by unregistered users.

BTW, I see that the article "Marco Polo"has the same problem - Croatians, it seems, insisting that Marco polo was Croatian, not a Venetian!!

This kind of behavior is making Wikipedia look ridiculous, instead off the important educational site it is supposed to be.

Syrenab (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Relax and enjoy. It hardly will change anyway, having been like that for quite while. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point! And take a look at Wikipedia:WikiSloth! If Wikipedia look ridiculous for all verbality, that's just a gentle breeze in comparison to the storms of academical debates. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We should also note that Martin Luther, Compernicus' contemporary, called Copernicus a Pole (Samrmatic). The fact that a German contemporary refers to Copernicus as a Pole seems very important for this debate (especially since it is reported by a German university as this link shows. (http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2003/3254/pdf/PSDissertation.pdf). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piast (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarmatic = Polish is really a very free interpretation. Luther knew, that there were Poles. But he didn't call him a Pole but sarmatic, which meant, someone, who came from the east, somewhere between Vistula and Volga, likely with the intention, to imply, far away from the contemporary centers of science. He mentioned no nationality, neither German nor Polish or Russian. --Henrig (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time in question it was used as a derogatory term for Poles - Polish nobles claimed they were of Sarmatic ancestry and Roman Catholic faith, and it became a term synonymous with "Polak" among the Germans. Heidelberg University agrees with that as do other sources, such as this one(another non-Polish source citing Copernicus as Sarmatic=Polish): [46]. Of course Nietzsche overtly calls Copernicus Polish as well. So I ask this: why do we have a quote from some random Stanford online profile of philosophers (which is really like a blog that invited some random lady with no expertise in Copernicus to write an entry) but we don't include quotes from contemporaries, leading non-Polish/non-german scholars who call claiming him to be German on par with the absurd and who explain that no one doubted his Polishness until Germans were overcome by imperialist tendencies in the mid-1800s. [47]. Who makes changes here, and who decides what goes in the entry and what doesn't? This thing, in regards to nationality and ethnicity, needs a significant makeover as it looks foolish to anyone who stumbles upon it that has any knowledge of fact. --Piast (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Luther meant it derogatory for sure, likely in the sense of backwoodsman, because he considered the new teachings as a disaccord with the bible. Sarmatic sounds archaic and got in the time of romanticism a possitive sound. But the term is not only connected with Poland. Maybe, in later times, when half of the Ukraine belonged to Poland, people saw it quite the same.

Nietzsche thought to be of Polish ancestry. --Henrig (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Henrig - scholars, including those linked above, equate "Sarmatic" with "Polish" int he time of Copernicus, regardless of whether you think it sounds archaic, romantic, positive, etc. --Piast (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I got some more for everyone - Feredric the Great called Copernicus a Pole, as did the German historian Johann Wachler. We shoudl put these in the entry as well. [48] --Piast (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am readint his article for the first time and it really seems biased towards the German side. I seem to recall the Wiki entry on Copernicus from a year or two ago that seemed much more well-balanced on the issue of nationality and ethnicity. Now, there seem to be various implications of German ancestry sprinkled about to imply, outside of the nationality/ethnicity section, that he was German. Very weird. Also, why is there no mention of the fact that the movement to claim Copernicus as a German was most significant during the Nazi era? It seems that this would be something important to convey. --Piast (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please make necessary changes.--Jacurek (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The naive nationalism that plagues Wikipedia is tiring to say the least. It certainly does undermine the credibility of the site as several have suggested. It seems worst (at least as far as Europe is concerned) with anything even vaguely related to peoples formerly within the Soviet Block. Perhaps it is only natural that after generations of repression, it takes an equal number of generations for a people to find a healthy identity and balanced national self esteem. There isn't even proof that Copernicus spoke Polish at all, yet if you look at the comments above you would think he was Polish through and through. It seems beyond these same folks that calling someone a "Pole" could also be meant as a sarcastic term for someone seemingly from the ends of the earth (and worse). Thank you for bringing up the (presumably) adolescent Croatians who would frame the Wikipedia article on Marco Polo to make him Croatian. It is all so tiring and inane. How about rather than trying to claim heroes from the past, you all leave a modicum of valid history in place and concentrate on creating NEW heroes here and now?

The top comment "PRO-CATHOLIC and against the Teutonic Knights. These are hardly German characteristics. Copernicus' family had Polish Catholic qualities NOT German pagan qualities." really takes the cake. It absolutely reeks of the Polish/Slavic stereotypes and resentments towards those to their West. The fact that the current pope is German, and that Germans were Christianized before Poles were makes the argument utterly laughable. When will this nonsense end? Udibi (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucid and insightful commentary from User:Udibi—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please learn history. Millions of Germans are Roman Catholics and fought against Protestant - not "Pagan" - Germans. Copernicus' city is German-speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.216.37 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts by Jacurek: is modern day Polish money more relevant to this article than a historic document written by Copernicus himself in the language of Polish kings, scholars, and churches: German?!

Copernicus' 1541 letter in German to Duke Albrecht of Prussia

Nicolaus Copernicus, bust created in 1807 by Schadow for the Walhalla, the hall of fame for famous persons of the German tongue

After I had made no less than ten mostly well commented edits in an attempt to clean up and rearrange the mess of graphics cluttered all over the article, Jacurek comes along and simply reverts, like before [49][50], this time claiming "massive removal of important information restored". What I had removed, repeatedly [51] [52], were three pointless images (Polish coins, Polish banknote, and yet another arbitrary bust/monument in some park) shown in the Ethnicity section in a clumsy attempt to back up his "Polishness", as well as the recently added "Mikołaj Kopernik" from the lead, a name which disrupts the fragile consensus for the lead, as it was never used by himself, having been invented by Poles centuries later. I had added a letter written by himself, in German, and the oldest bust of him, which happens to be in the Walhalla, the hall of fame of persons speaking German, which Copernicus did, undeniably. These facts apparently are unbearable to some Poles. Well, you better start to accept historical facts: Copernicus has written German, as it was his native language, and the language of his home town. No Polish language whatsoever in his life, unless he had to deal with the few non-German peasants in Masuria. In Cracow, where Queen Elisabeth of Austria (1436-1505), the mother of no less than four Jagiellon kings lived, German (and Latin) was well established, at the court, among merchants (like his fathers) and scholars, and even in St. Mary's Church.[53] [54]. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A picture of this oldest bust of him could be an enrichment in the article, perhaps with a simple description like "by Schadow (1807)". --Henrig (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added this picture now in a small format below the picture of the Matejko painting. Two masterworks together! --Henrig (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) As expected was there no chance. --Henrig (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) At the moment, the bust is in the article, but almost invisible: Very small (100px) and nearly at the end of the article. --Henrig (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Matthead, I'm sure you regard "Polish images" as "pointless". The article is a fragile compromise as regards the ethnicity issue. Please don't try to disrupt this compromise. Radeksz.

And we've been over the role of German in Polish medieval history innumerable times. Why are you trying to re-fight battles from five years ago? Radeksz.

Hello guys! Please take it easy! Please refrain from interpreting each others intentions, pointing out this and that person as doing bad, and instead concentrate on criticizing the edits. Matthead: I have some sympathy for your removal of a few images, since my OS/browser combination gets hickup and freezes if the article contain too many images, but it is an honorable thing to discuss changes on the talk page if the topic is controversial, which this topic inexplicably is. And same for reverts, Radeksz! Radeksz, would you please sign your talk replies with four tilde "~~~~", so that they become properly dated.

And, what are the controversial things with a Polish-German individual? Is this a fighting topic? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is not a "Polish-German" individual[[55]]. This is not simple, his nationality is clear to most, but not here.--Jacurek (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What about here [56]? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And among the myriads of examples ISBN 0-900424-76-1. The combatants of this ridiculous fight about the nationality of this German speaking Polish, should take a look at WP:VERIFY and put away their own personal views of Copernicus, Germanness and Polishness. The talk should be about sources, and not about how we would like it to be. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Rursus, of course there shouldn't be anything controversial about a Polish-German individual. But not everyone here on these pages thinks that way. Try to make Chopin, Polish-French, or Matejko, Czech-Polish, or Dzierzon, Polish-German, or Pilsudski, Polish-Lithuanian. See how far you'll get. On the other hand try to make Smuglewicz, or his father, "Lithuanian". The farthest you'll get is posssibly Samogitian, but that's not too likely. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan your examples are bad, Chopin is Polish-French due to the fact that one of his parents was French but Copernicus is not Polish-German.--Jacurek (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Jacurek: Copernicus is German-German, as both his parents were members of German-speaking families, also Koppernigk Senior, who had spend some time in Cracow, where many Germans resided. No Poles involved, and as the Polish proverb says, no Pole will ever be a brother to a German. Koppernigk junior was born as a German speaking citizen of a German-founded city in Prussia city which had seceded from the Monastic state to ally with the King of Poland some years earlier - on the very occasion of him marrying a German princess. As astronomer, he became known as Copernicus Torinensis, "Copernicus of Thorn", and for centuries was called Prussian, and also German. Not even the 17th century biographers Broscius and Starowolski, both patriotic Poles, disagreed with that, with Starowolski calling Copernicus a fellow countryman of Regiomontanus. Only in the late 18th century, when Poland fell apart due to internal bickering, Poles desperately tried to promote their agenda by claiming him as Polish, inventing the name Mikolaj Kopernik. Due to the Anti-German sentiment of the French in the 19th century, this was adopted there, with the English and Americans joining. Time to clean up these propaganda lies. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't. He is German-Polish. All the previous discussion should have indicated this even for you. However, this planet is a world of wonders. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here go go...:) Copernicus is "German" to Matthead :)...co comments.--Jacurek (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This dispute is a proxy for the underlying dispute over Copernicus's nationality

It really isn't a matter which of these images that you are edit warring over are more or less "relevant" to the article. There are too many images in the article, and too many of them do not contribute to understanding of the subject. Likewise, much of the text throughout the article (including, but not limited to, the Ethnicity and nationality section) is surplus. These images and factoids are inserted and fought over by editors who want as many (or as few) "Polish" or "German" images, names, locations, words, and facts as they can get away with. The apparent purpose of this exercise is to amass "evidence" to support a "case" that Copernicus was either Polish, German, or neither.

However, that is not how Wikipedia works. Unlike original writing, Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines do not permit establishing a conclusion by drawing inferences from available facts; that is prohibited as a synthesis, which is a form of prohibited original research. For inclusion in Wikipedia, statements themselves must be verifiable based on what the reliable sources, preferably secondary or tertiary sources, actually say. On English Wikipedia, English language sources are preferred, and they are not hard to come by about a subject of such broad interest as Copernicus. Given that the content dispute over nationality has been raging on this page for years, it is startling how few reliable secondary and tertiary sources are cited that actually say that that Copernicus was German, Polish, or neither. Instead of simply arguing at each other, or asserting that the issue of Copernicus's nationality is an established fact outside of Wikipedia, do some research on the subject in a library (and I do not mean just what you can find on the Internet). What do the biographies on Copernicus say? What do the myriad reference works say? If the editors who are so invested issue spend a few hours in a library, and bring what they find into the article, the article would be improved and the dispute over nationality might be resolved. Under Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, what the reliable sources actually say prevails over editors' opinions and points of view. Without doing the work of researching and assembling the reliable sources, these continuing arguments accomplish nothing. Finell (Talk) 18:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just add both pictures, what's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the point. And no matter how many pictures are added now—and there are already too many—some editors will compete to add more German and more Polish pictures, solely for nationalistic reasons. It's a silly aspect of a fundamental and serious problem with this article. Finell (Talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, parentage and language do not necessarily determine nationality. Countess Karolina Lanckorońska had a German mother (the daughter of Germany's ambassador to Britain in 1912–14), grew up and studied in Vienna, had a perfect command of the German language—and was nearly executed by the Germans in World War II as a member of the Polish underground resistance to Nazi Germany. Nihil novi (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Look guys Nicolaus Copernicus is regarded internationally as Polish astronomer. There is numerous monuments of Copernicus in Poland, schools named after him, money printed with his image etc, etc, the only problem is Wikipedia due to nationalistic character of some editors and possibility of arguing about such things.--Jacurek (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that establishes nationality, as far a Wikipedia is concerned, is what the reliable sources say Copernicus's nationality was, or wasn't. Wikipedia follows the sources. If a majority reliable sources say he was Polish (or German or neuter), then he was Polish (or German or neuter) under Wikipedia's policies. If there is a significant minority among the reliable sources as to Coperncus's nationality, then the article should represent the majority and minority views and sources in proportion to their prevalence in the literature. If editors edit the article contrary to the cited reliable sources, then there are mechanisms for enforcing Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Reliable sources. That is all there is to it. Arguing what you think Copernicus's nationality was, or wasn't, or the basis for your position, is pointless and is irrelevant to the content of the article. Go to the library, gather the sources (fairly, not selectively), and conform the article's content to the reliable sources. That will end the dispute. Finell (Talk) 05:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

):):) It would be nice if it was so simple :)...Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The Oxford World Encyclopedia, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia identify Copernicus as Polish only Wikipedia does not. Why ?? Because there will be alway some radical nationalistic editor popping up with some self published or other nationalistic source who will claim otherwise. That is why we have this situations right now.:)--Jacurek (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Hopeless...--Jacurek (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:) :) Copernicus was "German", Sklodowska was "French"[[57]] and "The Pope" was Italian - (from archives):):) - Wiki at its best!!:)--Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite 15–20 more quality sources, fully and correctly, and you will have a case. "[S]ome radical nationalistic editor popping up with some self published or other nationalistic source who will claim otherwise" can be dealt with under content policies and guidelines. Self-published isn't WP:RS. A minority view can be dealt with appropriately depending on its weight and notability, but that will not prevent reaching a conclusion. Either do some work and add more quality sources to the article, or else stop complaining. By the way, there are nationalists on both sides of this issue. Finell (Talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There must be some "Polish extremists" working everywhere:) O.K. then, 20 sources mostly from the universities and museums web pages confirming his nationality as POLISH [[58]], [59] [60],[61],[62] ,[63][64][65] [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]as well as for Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The Oxford World Encyclopedia, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia etc, etc. :) Now try to correct his nationality here and see how quickly an extremist arrives. God luck:)--Jacurek (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)A few of these duplicate sources that are already in the article (Britannica and Encarta). Most of the others aren't quality reliable sources. One is written by Vikas and Stephen, Grade 8, Riverdale Junior Secondary School! Many of the others are by anonymous authors or on sites with no credentials. Many are insubstantial. A professor's lecture notes aren't a reliable source. Please re-read what I wrote above about going to the library, then working good quality sources with full citations into the nationality section (not simply posting blind web links on the talk page). Finell (Talk) 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

)No offence...my honest opinion....you will reject any sources as not reliable simply to mantain your position. This is just my opinion and I may be wrong of course. So, not even one source out of 20 is reliable to you, right?:) O.K. then please find me 20 sources, even as "not reliable" as the one I have provided that Copernicus was pure German:) such as "Copernicus a German astronomer" etc. :) R U ready for the task?:)--Jacurek (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am, and Google Books has done its homework, too: Books 1 - 10 of 22 on "Copernicus a German astronomer". Jacurek, you owe Finell a crate with 20 beers, German of course, unless you have reliable secondary sources stating he prefers Polish beer. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost half of these sources seem to be by two 19th century juvenile non-fiction writers. Feketekave (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead: I like German beers, Belgian ales, Czech pilsener, English ales, and American craft brews, not necessarily in that order, and the occasional single malt scotch or Irish whiskey. Wine is my beverage of choice. My few experiences with Italian and French beers have been disappointing, in contrast to my enjoyment of their cheeses and cuisines. I cannot recall ever tasting Polish beer, but I like both Polish and German sausage. Thanks for asking. Although not relevant to how Wikipedia determines nationality, I would be curious about the results of searching Copernicus + German versus Copernicus + Polish (that is, not as phrases) on Google Books and Google Scholar. Finell (Talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Canadian Beer Finell... if not then you really should, there is not a beer in the world that taste better then Moosehead. 24.38.156.102 (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek: I do take offense. What in the world makes you think that is my opinion? Why don't you get off your rump and go to the library, where the quality sources are? With the exception of duplicating two online encyclopedias that are already in the article, you quick, easy online search did not yield quality reliable sources (the Wolfram probably does count as a WP:RS, but not as the highest quality). You obviously paid little attention to what you gathered, or you would not have included a short paper by two children! The problem is the quality of your sources, not necessarily your conclusion. Finell (Talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you guys even arguing over this? There's already 5 pages in the archives on Copernicus' nationality and nobody's gonna change their mind here. We have a reasonable compromise at the moment, we're avoiding unequivocal statements, the general question is more already covered, readers can form their own opinions. Why upset this compromise/consensus? The nature of the compromise is such that no one is 100% happy but it's still the best that can be done. This, the way things are now, is probably the best you can work it out and minimize conflict - not perfect, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.radek (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Radek: I don't accept what you call "a reasonable compromise". Arguments, however lengthy, do not determine content; reliabble sources do. Wikipedia's content guideline on biographies prescribes including nationality. Wikipedia routinely ascribes nationality to persons of Copernicus's era according to modern scholarship on nationality. Leonardo da Vinci is Italian, even though Italy did not exist and Leonardo, like Copernicus, identified himself by his home town. The biography guideline also says that ethnicity is normally not pertinent; what this article calls ethnicity is really what some editors consider to be evidence of Copernicus's nationality—which, as I explained above, is not the way nationality is determined under Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. The cited encyclopedias are a reasonable basis for predicting what the scholarly consensus is on Copernicus' nationality, but the addition of other high-quality sources ought to resolve whatever dispute might arise. What you call "a reasonable compromise" is really a stalemate between, or a surrender to, two nationalistic factions, both of which are holding this article hostage. This dis-serves Wikipedia's readers, for whom Wikipedia exists. In my opinion, the years of dispute here over Copernicus's nationality can be resolved by following the most reliable sources. Once this dispute is over, other editors can work to improve this article to the quality that the historical importance subject deserves. Finell (Talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, the obvious difference between Leonardo and Copernicus as it pertains to this discussion is that sources are mostly unambiguous in relation to Leonardo but there's a variance in sources in relation to Copernicus. Of course IMO the most relevant sources (other encyclopedias, etc.) call him Polish - but I'm not gonna insist on this because I value compromise, so I'm fine with the present ambiguous presentation in the article. Of course I understand the difference between ethnicity and nationality (which, BTW, was clearly Polish, since he was a subject of the Polish king), but people are gonna mix these things up and the "proxy war" is gonna involve various users using one of them to suggest the other. Which they shouldn't. Basically, this is one of those instances where you're not gonna be able to use sources to settle the issue to everybody's satisfaction, or even a consensus, since there's a lot of different sources out there.

And sure, it's a "stalemate" as well a compromise. Not sure what the difference is in this case. Pushing it one way or another will just completely and needlessly de-stabilize the article. Again.radek (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, Polish beer is excellent and you should try some. I do like it although I prefer Pilsner Urquell which is one of my favorites. Beer may have actually originated in Poland, and I possibly expect to see many sources demonstrating and proving that fact in the future. As for your suggestion that some of the engaged parties go to the library and do some research; it sounds like good advice, but a few of these editors are busy with other issues concerning their behavior on WP and may not be able to do so at the moment. I think allowing them some time to do further research would be fair. On the Leonardo ethnicity issue, that's pretty clear to someone thinking rationally, on the issue of Domenico Merlini or Wit Stwosz it becomes murky, at least in some quarters. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not!! Beer preceeded the Proto-indoeuropean language, see History of beer! The then-time Polish and the then-time Germans would not know they would in the far future speak different languages. Maybe they were already fighting, but the language could be no reasonable reason, nor race. More probably by not leaning their heads together and teach each other to brew better beer. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have learned at school that he was of German origin born into a wealthy family of merchants in the Prussian City of Thorn, growing up living in the German quarters of Cracow as part of the German minority there. He wrote his scripts either in German or Latin. However, he grow up in the Kingdom of Poland defending his chosen country against Teutonic / German aggression. To me it is clear: He was a polish astronomer of German heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rico Germanus (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a reasonable standpoint but people like User:Jacurek want to see him as "Polish astronomer" without an adjunct. They would rather like to omit his German parents in his biography. --89.247.232.226 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"People of the Polish–Teutonic War 1519–1521 (German side)"

How did Copernicus come by this category?

Which was the "German" side? The Teutonic Knights — or those ethnically-German residents of the area who opposed the Knights?

In any case, Copernicus defended Olsztyn (Allenstein) and Warmia (Ermland) against the Teutonic Knights! Nihil novi (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 3#Category:People of the Polish–Teutonic War 1519–1521. Apparently the intent was to merge the Polish- and German-side categories into Category:People of the Polish–Teutonic War 1519–1521. Instead, a bot moved everyone from the Polish side to the German side; evidently interpreting merge with as merge to. I suggest you contact the closing admin, or possibly the bot operator. For the time being, I eliminated the category from this article. —Finell 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I've taken your example and evacuated the rest of the Polish side from the category, leaving Duke Albert of Prussia in splendid isolation. Nihil novi (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A better solution would be to fix the whole mess at its root. There was hardly any discussion of the category merger. —Finell 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see several problems:

1. Obviously, if a merger was to have been done, it should have been to "Category: People of the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519–21," period.

2. In any case, it could not have been "German side" (there was no Germany), but "Teutonic Order side."

3. If there can be, as there are, separate categories "Union Army generals" and "Confederate States Army generals," then why not keep separate categories for Polish and Teutonic-Order participants in the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519-21? Where was the necessity of merging the two categories into a single one? Nihil novi (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable points, which you can take up with the closing admin (the admin appears to be conscientious based on my prior experience) or to initiate a review of the decision to merge. Very few editors commented in the merger discussion, so the result is not carved in stone. —Finell 07:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[...::::2. In any case, it could not have been "German side" (there was no Germany), but "Teutonic Order side."]

not quite right as the English translation Teutonic Order does not fit well... This Order still exist an it is called Deutscher Ritterorden or Deutschritterorden (German Knights Order) and clearly emphasises its connection with the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations where it has been derived to gain land in the east and to secure and spread Catholicism. (This was a posting by SineBot on 25 Dec without visible signature. My posting follows below.) --Henrig (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Germans fought against the Teutonic order! It was a long tradition, that small German speaking realms chose frequently those as higher ranking head, who promised them the most independence. The spoken language of this head was quite uninteresting.

After 1420 (according to my memory starting 1429 in Lübeck soon followed by Hamburg and many other Hanseatic cities) there were uprisings in many western Hanseatic cities against the ruling class of the established merchants. This made the Hanseatic League incapable of action, which had undesirable effects for the eastern Hanseatic cities. So the Teutonic Order tried to use the opportunity to abolish the widely independance of the Hanseatic cities in his area, like for instance Thorn (, where later Copernicus was born). And the cities then allied with the king of Poland against the Teutonic Order, who assured the cities, independence within their city walls and not to rule there. Warmia later joined the uprising. This was the origin of the later ongoing.

To construct from this a conflict of nationalities is really totally nonsense, depending on a thought pattern of the 19th century!

--Henrig (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, the article gives a different impression of the events in such cases. --Henrig (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a certain small improvement, that now the Prussian Confederation is mentioned in the article. --Henrig (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the significant information 'In this war predominantly German speaking Hanseatic cities like Danzig(Gdańsk) and Thorn (Toruń) chose to support the Polish king.'. --Henrig (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-portrait?

Copernicus was not a bishop, who was painted because of his office and became famous after his death. Early portraits (decades after his death) may have been painted according descriptions (big broken nose, a scar above the left eye, not fat, broad chin, clearly visible cheekbones etc.), but it was always speculation whether perhaps a self-portrait could have been a base. There were frequently some speculations, that Copernicus could have painted such a self-portrait.

By the way, formerly there were speculations about the portrait from Torun (Thorn) to be the speculative assumed self-portrait itself. This speculation might have been the base, to date it to the early sixteenth century, the date written also in the article for a long time. But scientific research clarified, that this is not possible. (Among other things the wood of the ground came from a tree, felled in 1571 [78] Page 55.

Piast writes now repeatedly about a self-portrait, for instance

"He signed a self-portrait, now at Jagiellonian University, 'N Copernic.'".

If such a self-portrait (discovered in the last few years) exists, it must be quite famous. Or the authenticity is at least not widely acknowledged and quite doubtful.

(In the last centuries some such claims of a self-portrait appeared.) By the way, after the discovery of the scull and the reconstruction of the head, everybody can compare it with a claimed self-portrait and easily decide for himself, whether he sees ample similarity. So please supply a link to the picture and a clear citation! --Henrig (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

may have been painted according descriptions (big broken nose, a scar above the left eye, not fat, broad chin, clearly visible cheekbones etc.)

Btw., the painting from the Torun town hall - perhaps the pattern for many subsequent paintings - gives the impression, that the painter had never seen Copernicus himself and developed his own and not authentical image of Copernicus from some heard mentions of these single characteristics above, including a scar above one eye and a big, but not as broken painted nose. --Henrig (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The most credible claim is that of the portrait on the Strasbourg astronomical clock, which was made by Tobias Stimmer after a (self?-)portrait donated by Tiedemann Giese's family. It is labeled "Nicolai Copernici vera effigies ex ipsius autographo depicta". As for Piast's references for a signed self-portrait in Cracow: they aren't. [60][62] refer to two dead web links, while [41] points to Britannica online, which cites "Credits : Courtesy of the Museum of Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland". That museum apparently has the website http://www.maius.uj.edu.pl/index.pl.html, which links to a very reliable source for "Mikołaj Kopernik astronom" (and others). Hilarious. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference for the portrait is Brittanica. If you go to the entry and click on the image, the portrait comes up. You can also access the portrait directly at [79]. I will make a change to the entry. --Piast (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the image at britannica.com, thanks. What I expect, though, is that the Jagiellonian University website shows it, just like it does with the manuscript of "de revolutionibus", and that reliable sources discuss the validity of the claims connected to it. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a bit disappointing. I've envisaged an original from Copernicus lifetime, available to scientific research, not a l17th century painting, claimed to be the copy of an original. But the painter was quite skillfull. But the copy of an original? Who knows? --Henrig (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are scholars who make a career (literally) out of knowing these things. Has anyone done library research about the portrait?—Finell 02:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Without further information it seems to be, at least, a bit doubtful at the moment.--Henrig (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

...and appears as one of the typical claims. --Henrig (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a common feature of the article, that vague speculations are often described as facts. This is only an example. It seems, vague suppositions necessitate an own wording, to make it clear. --Henrig (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality redux

I propose that this article's "Nationality" section be separated out and established as its own article, "Copernicus' nationality", where those interested in the question may study it exhaustively. Nihil novi (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be named "Controversy about Copernicus' nationality", and should not only list the established facts, but also cover the two centuries of claims and errors. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a main issue since 200 years. Trying on the one hand, to imply in each sentence of the article the impression, Copernicus was pure Polish and avoid on the other hand a section, which lights the controversy a bit in the article, is more than odd. Such a section is the only right way. An additional own article, which covers the two centuries of claims and errors would be helpful too. --Henrig (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just stop this endless debate by saying that: 1) Copernicus lived at a time in which modern nation states did not exist, 2) Details of his life make it difficult - inappropriate even - to place him definitively into a single, modern, national identity, 3) Both Germans and Poles are proud to consider him one of their own. This is the truth, this addresses both "camps," and this doesn't exclude anyone. That said, I agree that a SEPARATE article on "Controversy about Copernicus' nationality" could be useful; I would simply like the debate to stop plaguing THIS article.Udibi (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It is time to stop this article being an endless battleground. But I would call the proposed new article, simply, "Copernicus' nationality". Titles should be as brief as possible. The very fact that a separate article is needed on the subject, should make it clear enough that there has been controversy. Nihil novi (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate the nationality bickering over this article, I strongly oppose making a separate article. A separate article, devoted solely to nationality, would be a worse battleground. Further, most English language publications—including encyclopedias, other reference works, history books, and biographies—are unaware of this so-called 200 year dispute. The dispute between Wikipedia editors on this issue does not reflect the English-speaking world, which is the readership that this encyclopedia serves, nor the English-language sources.—Finell 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the non-Anglophone Wikipedia world seems to agree with Finell. There are Wikipedia articles on Copernicus in 102 languages. The German article does not unequivocally identify Copernicus' nationality. Of the other first 28 articles that I was able to decipher and that did offer a national identity, he was identified as Polish in all 28: an:Nicolau Copernico, az:Nikolay Kopernik, ba:Николай Коперник, be-x-old:Мікалай Капэрнік, bg:Николай Коперник, bs:Nikola Kopernik, ca:Nicolau Copèrnic, cs:Mikuláš Koperník, da:Nicolaus Kopernikus, et:Mikołaj Kopernik, el:Νικόλαος Κοπέρνικος, es:Nicolás Copérnico, eo:Koperniko, fr:Nicolas Copernic, ga:Nicolaus Copernicus, gd:Nicolaus Copernicus, hr:Nikola Kopernik, io:Nikolaus Kopernikus, id:Nicolaus Copernicus, is:Nikulás Kópernikus, it:Niccolò Copernico, jv:Nicolaus Copernicus, pam:Nicolaus Copernicus, sw:Nicolaus Copernicus, lt:Mikalojus Kopernikas, lij:Niccolò Copernico, lmo:Nicolò Copèrnico, hu:Nikolausz Kopernikusz. — Nihil novi (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in most modern encyclopedias Copernicus is listed as Polish. That doesn't make it true - it is an anachronistic oversimplification. Encyclopedias don't like ambiguity; everything is supposed to fit into a neat category. The logic behind calling Copernicus Polish goes as simply as this: Where he was born is now in Poland, so he was Polish. The end. Frankly, few people outside of the German and Polish-speaking world give a squat or give the matter a second thought. Still, that doesn't make it true.

The reality is much more complex, as we all know. The area was mixed linguistically and culturally. While there are aspects that would point to him being Polish, there is actually no proof that Copernicus knew the Polish language, while it is clear he was fluent in German and Latin. Blah, Blah, Blah - I still think it provides a more meaningful understanding of Copernicus and the world from which he came to say that "both Germans and Poles are proud to consider him one of their own."

As for the German article, while it avoids assigning a nationality to Copernicus, it ends with a sentence stating that "his person was and is claimed by German and Polish chauvinists." - Indeed! Udibi (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

his person was and is claimed by German and Polish chauvinists - the best comment I've heard about the discussion to date :) Greenman (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Imho the current para on his nationality sums it up pretty well. If broadened, the subject of claiming shared history as exclusive might even yield its own article, but it will certainly be not one that finds an easy consence. I would not want to venture there.

Calling him a Prussian from Royal Prussia - where the Roy was the Polish King - comes closest. The current para reflects this pretty well, so best leave it as it is.

Ironically the concept of "nationality" was born from the "nationes" of the universities, first of all Bologna. There Kopernikus joined the German nationes, for whatever reasons. If there was also a Polish nation to choose from, we probably do have his own statement on his cultural background and can forget this debate. I assume its not so easy, however - often regions were lumped together. For most Italians the difference between a cultural German and Polish background certainly seemed insignificant around 1500, and any student was obliged to join a "nation". Perhaps some research can clear that matter.--ASchudak (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's core content policy of Verifiability, Wikipedia publishes what the reliable sources say. Where there are differing conclusions among reliable sources (not counting fringe viewpoints), we report the differing views in proportion to their weight among scholars in the field; that is what Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view requires. Wikipedians' personal beliefs as to what is the truth], on the other hand, is irrelevant: Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. That is the only sensible policy for an encyclopedia that is edited by amateur volunteers.—Finell 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. One more reason to keep the current para on the "nationality", since it reflects existing modern sources on the debate, in addition to a count of encyclopedias.

You should consider, however, that there are also a lot of non-reliable sources on this matter floating around (including some encyclopedias). If that matter would be easy to resolve using scholary research, it would be a non-issue because somebody would have done so long ago. That is the reason why the neutrality of this article is classified as "under dispute" for years now. As long as the debate upon the sources does not spill into the article and keeps to this page, it should be within the scope of wikipedias policy. My final comment was not a request for original research, but to look for articles or sources who have done that. Badly phrased, perhaps.--ASchudak (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how he is called in a number of wikipedias is in no way important, because most not even listen a source. And many wikipedia articles are also simple translations of other wikipedas - most often form the English wikipedia - and in the English wikipedia he was introduced as Polish for al long time - but this mustn't be the best solution. To avoid his nationality and list him uner both Polish in German - is the best solution in my opinion. I think the English Wikipedia at the moment with the citation of Davies is very good - and the best version in a long time, which changed depending who edited, German or Polish "patriots". 195.243.51.34 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems, this section about nationality is not seriously challenged at the moment.--Henrig (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Mamalala - his style reminds me in some way of Molobo - changed this section, which maintained until now a neutral sight, into a section of massive Polish propaganda. I've reverted this changes. Otherwise a new POV template would be unavoidably.--Henrig (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW: User:MyMoloboaccount now. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rvt to version 06:35, 24 April 2010 Nihil novi which was the last before Lala struck. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mamalala has been blocked as a suspected EEML sock puppet last week.

Yesterday, Nihil novi attached a 'Cleanup template' to this section. I've asked him to discuss it first on the talk page. --Henrig (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much to discuss. The section is written chaotically, in places ungrammatically, as a reading of it will demonstrate to anyone who knows English. Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a bit, though perhaps the ordering of ideas still needs some improvement - do you want to have a go?--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the unnecessary italics and rearranged some of the material to give it a more logical sequence. I think it reads better, while retaining a balanced view. Nihil novi (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would rather calculate, that a few (now removed) sentences disturbed you someway.--Henrig (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Coppernicus officially a polish astronomer ???

Gdańsk is city in Poland so why this city is mentioned as a Danzig? If some englishman tries to find Gdańsk in Poland he didnt find it. So why Gdansk appears on a second place? That`s nomenclature error.

in Great Britain the historical name Danzig is still today widely used because of its long history (since 12/13thcentury until 1945) and historical importance. So why should it be changed, only because this once German town was given to Poland in 1945 and renamed into Gdansk?

Second matter. Why in all wikipedia languages or Britanica, Kopernik appears as a Polish astronomer and in english wikipedia dont ? French or Spanish wikipedia tells that Kopernik is polish astronomer anyway else too, but here there is a problem ? So why this problem concerns only this one little article ? That`s strange :) If this problem of determining nationality would be real it should spread on everysite on internet for example wikipedia but it dont, why ? Beacuse officially Kopernik exists as a polish astronomer - in official nomenclature. That`s why this problem isnt the fact the problem of all mankind :) Only a problem to few german people.

Other nations just dont care. For an British it is of no interest, if he was a German or a Polish astronomer. It is just plain simple, today all the regions Copernicus once lived in belong to Poland, so they have no problem with calling him a Polish. If Germany would not have lost the 1. and 2. World war and these territories and cities (Frauenburg, Allenstein, Thorn) would still belong to Germany, Copernicus would be reffered by all other nations as a German, and as a German only. Noone would think of him a a Polish.

As a German I have to accept the fact, that these territories belong to Poland now since 1945 or 1919, OK. But it is not acceptable, that the German history of regions like Pomerania, Prussia or Silesia and their people is now rewritten and polonized by Polish "historians" too. It ist strange to see, that a person like Copernicus, who had obviously german parents and family roots, was born in a German speeking, although officially part of Poland still - like Danzig - totally self-governing and independend town like Thorn, enrolled in university as a German, lived apart from his university years for good reason in German speaking areas of Prussia (Frauenburg, Allenstein, Heilsberg, Thorn) his whole life, can seriously be considered as 100 % Polish only.

Germans starts the campaign only in english wikipedia beacuse here they can. Here are much more vievers than in French or Croatian wikipedia for example. Anyway, why you germans getting in dispute if Kopernik was officialy polish citizen? Well there wasnt citizenship in the past at all, but there was a surrender for example of polish crown and that determines him as a Polish in nationality as he defends polish curency before Germans as he defends Olsztyn before German-Teutonic Order, that also determines him as a Pole. Prussia was a state of Poland like Floryda is USA state. There is a pattern why in history we determined somebody as a member of some nation. Beacuse we translate from the past the reference of surrender to the crown to citizenship to presence day. He was born in Prussia which was a state of Kingdom of Poland, and that determines him as a Pole in meaning of citizenship of presence day. That`s the full official state.

Martin Luter called him a Pole, also Feredric the Great, but not english wikipedia.

Any sources for that? I seriously doubt they did, they just refered to him as someone by chance living in Poland, that's it.

Well that`s funny :) I didnt get in dispute beacuse all of wikipedia languages and britanica articles using words like polish astronomer and it`s also is in use by for example Stephen Hawking in his books and that`s totally enough :) But germans can make their little war here in some little article in internet :) That`s sad :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricz1980 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What?…Haha no, I can understand you fairly well (I’m used to dealing with non-native speakers of English, especially considering my Chinese Fiancé is only a level 2/3 - Would you mind if someone straightens out your spelling and grammar?) But I would suggest reading some of the past discussions on this. At the current moment in time no nationality or even citizenship is mentioned in the lead or the Infobox, and maybe that’s for the best. The main point to avoid is trying to determine his nationality or citizenship based on the present day. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankyboy yeah right, my english is only 1 year old. Anyway was I the person which was asking you about something ? :) I mean I`ve just spoken few words which clearly didnt asking anybody about anything, but you telling me about your Fiancé ? Man, I dont care about your Fiancé, and what is her knowledge in any field, is she Chinese or Bulgarian or Pakistanian :) Do you get it ? :) If you`ll be answering me in future please try to avoid the topic from where is her dog or her fishes in aquarium, ok ?:)

I didnt asking anybody to comment me about Kopernik nationality, beacuse as I mentioned eariler, in, French, Italia or Espania wikipedia Kopernik figures as a polish astronomer. English wikipedia didnt really do any harm to his real nationality as a polish beacuse Britanica is much more greater than just english wikipedia site :) So If I`ll be trying to fight here about that, it would be just a waste of time. Greets for your Chinese Fiancé (which is on level 2/3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricz1980 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As a neutral observer I came across this article, and saw that it was unclear. Copernicus was a POLISH astronomer according to the even the German government.

Pure nonsense, and even if some member of one of the left parties said that, it would still be historically wrong.

If you read any other article about him on wiki, or any other encyclopedia (even German ones) they ALL state he was Polish. I can easily supply 10 encyclopedias sources that say he was Polish. But it seems that this page has been hijacked by German nationalism so i doubt it will help. Torun is an ancient Polish city with mostly polish influence.

No it is not. Thorn was founded by German settlers in 1233, it was and ancient German town and remained its German character for many decades after 1466. There is nothing "ancient" Polish about that town, as the typical northern German architecture of the old town clearly proves to any visitor.

A neutral observer should read some non-german/non-polish sources and fix this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Dood (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No the problem of the article is the nonreliable use of nationalistic Polish "historians".

---

The article states that Copernicus grandmother Katherine was a Modlibóg, the article about Lucas Watzenrode the Elder states that his wife was born as Katharina von Rüdiger, which article is right and on what information (documents or church book entries) are these claims based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmeany (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is full of Polish propaganda and name-dropping (like the prominent Czapski, Działyński, Konopacki and Kościelecki noble families). The idea that the astronomer's maternal grandma had been a Modlibog was promoted in 1844 by Adrian Krzyzanowski, and even though it was debunked already in 1853 [80] by Leopold Prowe as having been published by Gottfried Centner based on an unreliable source from outside Thorn, this myth, like others, is repeated by Poles and by other, sloppy writers. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly this wikepedia article is id deed full of Polish propaganda and not neutral at all, as it should be.

No this article is filled with German nationalists using the big lie technique to spread lies about Poles just like the big German Lie that "Polish calvalry charged German tanks" that was repeated over and over until it took a life of its own. Now Germans are now trying to push the Big Lie technique repeating over and over that Copernicus was "German" just because he spoke German. NOTE TO GERMANS: Many ethnic Poles near German territory SPOKE GERMAN. Poles decoded German codes in WWII because of their knowledge of German. Many in my Polish family speak German that does not make them German neither does it make Copernicus German. Frederick Nieztche was a German citizen who spoke German but he was an ethnic Pole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 700KFF (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Partisans of both persuasions have been dumping unnecessary German and Polish material into this article.—Finell 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is in truth a lot of subtle Polish propaganda in the article and Nihil Novi is keen to abolish the last remainders, which disturb his intention to imply everywhere the impression, C. was a Polish astronomer. This morning, he deleted the sentence 'The Prince-Bishopric of Warmia enjoyed substantial autonomy, with its own diet (parliament), army, monetary unit.' without mentioning in the edit summary. It's a fully one-sided matter with only some critics on the talk page. --Henrig (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence, "The Prince-Bishopric of Warmia enjoyed substantial autonomy, with its own diet (parliament), army, monetary unit (the same as in the other parts of Royal Prussia) and treasury," has not been deleted. It is where it was, at the top of the "Work" section. Nihil novi (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The direct comparison in the contribut showed the remark "— apart from brief journeys to Kraków and to nearby Prussian cities (Toruń, Gdańsk, Elbląg, Grudziądz, Malbork, Königsberg)..." instead. (Besides, a clear contempt of the Gdansk guideline — See the template at the top!) I've overseen, the still existing sentence below. --Henrig (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean, you "overlooked" the sentence still being there?

Gdańsk was, in Copernicus' time, part of Royal Prussia and therefore part of the Kingdom of Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Danzig(Gdansk) was at Copernicus time a leading city of the Hanseatic League, which participated in victorious wars of the Hanseatic league against states, which where European Great Powers. The Hanseatic towns themselves were as League a great European Sea Power, but as towns not an own state, and often dependent on good relations with the heads of the different local territories, acknowledging them by name as head of state, but anxious, that they don't try to rule the cities themselves. This was the reason, that Danzig - the name, which the city used by itself - prefered as member of the Prussian Confederation the king of Poland as a nominal head instead of the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, after the Polish king ensured not to rule the city itself. See also the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion, which as guideline applies also to other towns, which share a common history between Germany and Poland. --Henrig (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The contempt of such guidelines is a general problem on Wikipedia! --Henrig (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in the Last Paragraph

The last paragraph, mentioning Copernicus' re-burial, refers to a canon as being just "below the rank of priest" -- this is incorrect -- a canon is a priest -- it's a particularly high-ranking office for a priest and means he was attached to a cathedral or a chapter.118.70.125.46 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My sources indicate that you are right. I have corrected the text accordingly; thank you. Please let us know, should you find other errors, in that section of the article or elsewhere. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is correct. The article Canon in the Catholic Encyclopedia nowhere says that a canon must be a priest. There is also an influential article by the eminent Copernican scholar, Edward Rosen, which argues that Copernicus was never ordained.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed reference to priesthood in connection with the post of canon. Nihil novi (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

why not B-Class

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. (less important topics may be missing)
3. The article has a defined structure.
4. The article is reasonably well-written.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

Which of these points is still open? For me the article is referenced, covers everything, has structure, is well written, has supporting material and is accessible. So lets upgrade it to B-Class.--Stone (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Key interpretations of Copernicus' personal background are still too much contested. Take this one: "Copernicus spoke Latin, Polish, and German with equal fluency." Really, where is the evidence? AFAIK, there is very little actual evidence that NC spoke Polish at all. And I mean real evidence, not just opinionated, unsubstantiated assertions to that effect by (often outright partial) authors which you can find all over the web (and cite at will). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the sources and the choice which sources (and with which content) may be an issue. Another question is, if they are even correctly cited. Example: The article states about Copernicus grandmother: "née Modlibóg". As reference serves the sentence "The mother of Barbara and Lucas was a Modlibog." in a book by Alexandre Koyre. There is a difference to the statement "née Modlibóg". Likely she was née Rüdiger. But there is also a speculation about a relationship between Rüdiger and Modlibóg. Therefore the statement "She was a Modlibóg. But there are great uncertainties. It's even not absolutely sure, that she was née Rüdiger (A certain possibility seems also to be, that she was the daughter of the former mayor of Thorn 'Albrecht Russe'.) This is an example. Another complementary point of criticism I've written in the section 'Self-portrait?' before. --Henrig (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic are also some of the article's references. Here I've especially in mind Adrian Krzyżanowski, a typical exponent of the extremely grown Polish patriotism in a time, when there was no Poland. His intention was purely the arousing of Polish national pride and he had success until today. But as a source in an encyclopedia quite dubiously. --Henrig (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Center of the universe?

This phrase is used several times in the article, and twice in the lead. Can some (not all) of these instances be revised to "center of the solar system"? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Copernicus and others talked about the distant stars as well as the planets and other objects. They were describing the universe, and not just the solar system. (I do think that some of those statements are inaccurate for other reasons.) Roger (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus believed that the sun was at the center of the universe. Given his philosophical presuppositions as a neo-platonist, the idea that the sun was simply one of many stars with no center in the universe would have been unthinkable. 72.222.246.192 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

r1b y chromosome haplogroup -so he is germanic?

Since copernicus has the r1b y-chromosome haplogroup is he considered germanic on both sides of his family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at [81], especially: "while this is insufficient to ascertain the ethnic origin of Copernicus' patrilineage, it certainly suggests a higher probability for it being of ethnic German rather than Polish origin." ASchudak (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Priest

Added in three sources showing he was a priest. One of them a Catholic site, one an Anglican website, and the third, the most important of them all - a book by the agnostic/atheist Stephen Hawking, http://books.google.com/books?id=vFcqRuHLMwEC&pg=PR12&lpg=PR12&dq=Nicolaus+Copernicus+priest&source=bl&ots=X_QyFuJQnK&sig=zPUS85Xxat9fmrwIuDk5X3yjpwM&hl=en&ei=l-zATIzLG4LWtQPmmb3eCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Nicolaus%20Copernicus%20priest&f=false

Right there.

98.176.12.43 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Copernicus was Polish

Nicholas Copernicus father and mother were both Polish, his father from Krakow and mother from Tourn. Now argument that I read about Copernicus not being Polish is that because he was born on the border of the Royal Kingdom of Prussia. Yet, he grew up in Poland, he was educated in Poland and he parents were Polish. So all the facts out weight that fact that he was born in Royal Prussia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.55.241 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see sections above on this Talk page for extensive prior discussion. -- Scray (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why were old, archived Talk entries pasted back onto to this page?

It appears that very old, previously archived Talk page entries were pasted back onto the beginning of this page, above the heading "Nationality redux". Why? This makes the Talk page excessively long and defeats the purpose of orderly archiving. Unless there is some very good reason for this, I intend to delete all of these old posts.—Finell 08:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Nihil novi (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not old archived talk page entries but a transclusion of the page Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice via a redirect from the page Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice. The transclusion template was added with this edit of Matthead's in June 2009. I have no idea why it was added but I can't see that it serves any purpose that couldn't be better achieved by simply giving a wikilink to the page, so I've now removed it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

After further investigation, I suspect that what Matthead had really intended to do was add the template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}, which would simply have inserted a copy of the following notice: have found that the page Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice originally contained the source for the following notice:

.

at the top of the page. In May 2009 the source was moved to its current location at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice and replaced with a redirect to that page. For some inexplicable reason the redirect was changed just a week ago to redirect to the page Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. I have now reverted this back to the original redirect I don't see much harm in anybody's doing this restoring the above notice to the top of this page if they really want to, but I don't see any necessity for it either.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

??????????!! The Danzig/Gdansk template was already at the top, when I saw this page for the first time in 2009. And there it is convenient. But now appeared a lot of diverse old threads from 2005, which were already archived since years. (This must have happened in the last few days. Is there a possiblity, to see, who was responsible? The view history gives really the impression, this happened already more than a year ago. Strange!) Henrig (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Question answered by David Wilson's explanatory extension of his posting above this morning. Henrig (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

@Finell Now these very old thread have disappeared again and with them unfortunately the 2010's thread 'Nationality redux'. But this thread should now be restored!!! In the lead is remarked not to mention a nationality there, with a hint to the talk page. This thread handles sufficently the problem and is necessary for readers! There should be sufficient material on the talk page. Therefore, can you restore it? Henrig (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

MiszaBot moved 'Nationality redux' and another old thread to Archive 6 as part of her daily chores. It had nothing to do with this discussion. A banner at the top of this talk page refers readers to old discussions of nationality in the archives. That's enough.—Finell 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, Matthead wasn't actually responsible for the appearance of all the old discussions from the page Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. A week ago, somebody unthinkingly changed a redirect on a page that had been transcluded into many others, including this one, which is what caused the sudden appearance of the old discussions. Anyone interested in the gory details can find them in my refactored comments above.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

mixed attitude towards Copernicus

Seeing that : 1.Copernicus did not eliminate Ptolemy's epicycles from planetary theory 2.his mathematical model of planetary motion contains about as many epicycles as the ptolemaic model 3.Copernicus eliminated the equant, so that his model involved only perfectly regular circular motions(adherence to the tradition) 4.his model was not more accurate than Ptolemy's at predicting planetary positions 5.It was really Kepler who brought the heliocentric system to its modern form , who made it really "system" 6.It was really Aristarchus who proposed heliocentric system 7.And having read T.Kuhn The Copernican revolution and other works of the kind and on this subject I would say the tone of the article is that of the religious glorification as it is the case here and common in the elementary introductions "Copernicus' vision of the Universe" picture- for the elementary school is there anywhere authentic schema of the Copernican system with all its motions - not this promotional banner Sertorius1974 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but it would help if you made some very specific suggestions for improving the article. Roger (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First

The word "comprehensive" appears in the first paragraph. I am not sure what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First (again)

It is completely wrong to say or assume that Copernicus was "the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology". He should be credited with being the most influential person to convince people of the heliocentric cosmology after the Dark Ages. This idea was held by at least one Ionian Greek 1000 years before Copernicus, however, it is almost certain that if more texts would have survived through the Dark Ages, more evidence of this idea would be present. The lack of evidence in this matter is more than enough to conclude that Copernicus was not the "first person", and while he had an important impact in science, wording concerning this matter should be chosen carefully.Charleshages (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation to a reliable source for the statement that Copernicus was the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, along with a brief explanatory footnote. Although the source uses the word "serious" rather than "comprehensive", the latter seems to me to be more descriptive of the crucial difference between Copernicus's exposition and Aristarchus's—as documented by the sources provided.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland ist misleading and partly incorrect, please remove it below the picture

Please remove "Kingdom of Poland" after "Royal Prussia" below the Picture. This is misleading and partly incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.165.102 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's correct and not the least misleading. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of OR and SYNTH

Re: "Some scholars hold that German should be considered Copernicus’ native language;[31], because he was born in a then predominantly German-speaking town", which I removed. Look at this sentence. It says that some scholars consider the fact that Torun was predominantly German speaking as an argument for what Copernicus' native language was, right? Ok, the reference however to support this is from Rudnicki [82] - however, Rudnicki DOES NOT "consider German to be Copernicus' native language" or at least there's nothing in the text to indicate that he does. In fact his comment about " This discussion became a fierce scholarly quarrel in the times of nationalism (second half of 19th century up to the Second World War). Luther’s statement was often cited then as an argument that Copernicus had been considered Polish, at least by his contemporary Germans. (The adjective “Sarmatic” was used as equivalent to Polish.) " suggests quite the opposite. BTW, I think Luther's opinion is notable here hence I will include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Links

Please add link to Copernican academic portal NICOLAUS COPERNICUS THORUNENSIS bacause this is a very important and useful page.

I agree. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Added under section External links group General as

• Nicolaus Copernicus Thorunensis by the Copernican Academic Portal

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Section for both mother and father?

Including subsections for both Copernicus' mother and father is somewhat excessive, it seems that details relevant to the (perplexing and apparently pointless) argument over his nationality should be moved to that section of the article. Perusing other encyclopedias shows no other source places so much emphasis on the biographical data of the parents. I'd like to see those sections removed or merged with 'Nationality' Billfruge (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on Catholicism in the family sections?

"a well-to-do Catholic merchant", "The Watzenrodes, who were Roman Catholic". AFAIU, these are times before Luther, when everyone in Central Europe was Roman Catholic. MCiura (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

These were times contemporary with Luther and the beginning of the Protestant reformation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious. Copernicus's father died when Luther was an infant of no more than 2 years old, and the start of the latter's conflict with the Church was still at least 20 years in the future. The last of the Watzenrodes to have a sufficiently important interaction with Copernicus to warrant mention in most biographies of him was his uncle Lucas. Lucas died in 1512, at a time when Luther was still a monk in good standing with the institutional Church, and had yet to express any major disagreement with any of its doctrines or activities. Even if all or most of the Watzenrodes did remain Catholic throughout the Reformation, I can't see how that's what the sentence quoted above by MCiura could be referring to. That sentence was clearly describing the history of the family during the time leading up to Copernicus's birth. The characterisation of them as "Roman Catholic" seems to me be a gratuitous anachronism which is apt to puzzle readers acquainted with the chronology of the relevant events. Unless someone can offer a convincing reason why the description needs to be retained, I believe it should be removed.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Dave. Removed the two mentions from the article. MCiura (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) - Polish mathematician and astronomer

It's weird that Mikolaj Kopernik's (Copernicus) nationality/ethnicity is not shown at the start of the article. All famous scientists have their nationality/ethnicity displayed in wikipedia. Also, why is the German version of the name shows first? Kopernik was Polish, and should have his native name shown first, no need for German or Italian versions.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus

This was the compromise after many years of heavy edit warring. You can see all the arguments in the very large archives. Henrig (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You state that the Catholic Church did not immediately condemn Copernicus' book or theory after it was published but that was probably because the printer, Osiander, who was also a theologian, included an unsigned letter at the front that stated that the contents were not to be taken as "truth" but that they provided easier calculations for the position of heavenly bodies. Keppler was the one that refuted this years later and made it publich that the letter was NOT Copernicus' work. That and the fact that Coperincus died the day he received the first published copy probably saved him from immense persecution. Wetzelt (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)wetzelt

Since Osiander was obviously trying to protect Copernicus from be condemned, is there any particular known reason as to why he did go through the trouble of protecting him? Was is simply because Osiander was a theologian and didn't want to be associated with printing a condemned work, or did Osiander see truth in what Copernicus was publishing? -Ward Ward.E (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say since it wasn't discovered until later. I am not sure he was so much protecting Copernicus as he didn't want to have a condembed work published, especially if he could be associated with it. Your last question made me think though, Osiander was a printer of math texts but not necessarily a mathematician. Maybe he did not have the skills to understand Copernicus' work and thought it had to be untrue because it did not fit anything in his understanding. Wetzelt (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Wetzelt

Osiander may have been protecting Copernicus's work and labeling it as simply easier calculations so that further study could be granted to the topic. He wasn't protecting Copernicus so much as he was protecting the ability for mathematicians to continue studying something that provided some value but was not the status quo. I find it likely he understood what Copernicus was onto, and thus provided cover for continued study of the idea.199.245.238.2 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Kinney SMU

I did some research on Osiander and it does not appear that he was a mathematician. He simply happened to be a printer that was experienced in printing math textbooks which were harder to do then simple prose. I find it unlikely that he understood anything that Copernicus did or hypothesized in the mathematical sense, but clearly he understood that Copernicus was putting forth the idea of heliocentricity. But, being that his preface meant that the book was not banned and was therefore freely available for scholars to read and use, it DID protect the idea and ensure it was available for further work and discovery. So, while his motives may not have been pure, his actions ended up being "right". Wetzelt (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Wetzelt

So much for assuming the best in people :D 199.245.238.2 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Kinney

Under the heading of "NATIONALITY" the single resorce that lists Copernicus as "the child of German family" (The Stanford Encyclopidia) is listed first while FIVE other sources that "identify Copernicus as Polish" (Encyclopædia Britannica,Encyclopedia Americana,The Columbia Encyclopedia,The Oxford World Encyclopedia,and the Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia) are listed second. Shouldn't the more numerous position (identify Copernicus as Polish) be listed first?

, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.70.166 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, about this Polish-German stuff:

• Yes he was a subject to the Polish crown,
• Our most honorable astronomer is subject to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds#Nicolaus Copernicus, I presume that adds to his fame,
• The current state is some kind of compromize based on the thinking that

• nationality is a modern concept invented in the 19th century,
• Germanists edit war him to be German, while Polonists edit war him in the other direction,
• people in the 16th century generally spoke many languages, a resident in Gdanzigsk prob German, Polish, Latin and some other languages,
• edit wars s*cx!!

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Copernicus could only write in German and Latin fluently. Please remove polish in languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.162.167 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Many Poles historically spoke German. So speaking the German language does not make somebody German. Also Copernicus was not born to a German family like the Pro-German Standford Encyclopedia alleges, because if he was from a German family, he and all of his family would have adopted the German Martin Luther's protestant religion, like virtually all of the German families in his German-Polish area. Instead Copernicus' family were staunch Catholics and Pro-Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emksemks (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What source do you have that says he did not speak Polish? —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Copernicus" was a woman! --Matrek (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No! His father was a woman, while his mother was a man, only they swapped places when nobody looked! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Counterquestion are there any documents in Polish written by him ? There are a least three in German and dozens in Latin. http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Copernicus-gegen-den-Hochmeister.djvu&page=1 http://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Copernicus-Muenzschriften.djvu&page=1 http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/An_den_Herzog_Albrecht_von_Preussen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.47.236 (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just rechecked the article. There are three reliable secondary sources cited in the article that state that he spoke Polish. Per the verifiability policy, that's reason to include the claim that he spoke Polish; you'll need to find multiple sources of a similar or higher scholarly quality that claim he did not speak Polish before the article can change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But these are "just" secondary sources. Are there any primary sources in Polish? If I read something like "there is evidence that he spoke Polish" it does not sound as it was his mother tounge and if this is the case he cannot be Polish but just a subject to the Polish king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.51.23 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the link on verifiability and also the description of WP:Secondary sources. Secondary sources such as biographies, scholarly papers, and the like are preferred for articles. The absence of primary sources in Polish does not establish that he didn't speak Polish. We have biographers and scholars who state that he spoke Polish, so without similar or superior scholarly sources to refute it, the text stays in. Given that there is quoted text in the reference, I don't think this is the first time this has come up. I don't see any new sources to change things, so based on the sources in the article, Copernicus spoke Polish, so the article should state that's one of the languages he spoke. SK —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption of last name origin

The article incorrectly assumes that Kopernik's surname had something to do with the copper-mining industry of Silesia (Śląsk). The association of copper can only be made in the English language, and not in Polish, German, Latin or Italian.

In Polish, "koper" means "dill", which is in line with scholarly assertions mentioned in the article. There is no German word "koper", nor anything in Latin or Italian. Kats8thLife (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Koper" or "Kopper" is fairly close to both Kupfer and Cuprum, though, so I fail to see the problem you're talking about. —Kusma (t·c) 08:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's from Cuprum.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See Low German. In Low German, btw, the Business language of the Hanseatic League, the term was Copper. In the Low German dialect 'Plattdüütsch' the term is also today Copper, Coper or Kopper. 'Kupfer' has a south German origin. Naturally, all these terms have likely their origin in the Latin term 'cuprum'. Henrig (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Copernicus DoD

According to the rev Szorc and Sikorski Phd Copernicus DoD should be 21st May, not 24th May (please look at the picture of Copernicus grave at Frombork Cathedral) Dani781 (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani781 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV policy, the article should list the date of death that is currently accepted by most historians. It is not enough for someone to claim in their PhD thesis that the date of death was May 21 - that view needs to become commonly accepted by historians. If the PhD dissertation you mention received significant coverage by other published sources, the May 21 date may be mentioned in the main body of the article as a possible alternative date of death of Copernicus. Note, however, that, as the article explains, Copernicus' grave had been lost for several hundred years after his death. So whatever the inscription made several hundred years after his death says does not, in and of itself, carry significant weight. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ibn al-Shatir

Dear Wikipedia, Recent evidence has proven that Nicolaus Copernicus and his book De revolutionibus, were directly influenced by the works of Ibn al-Shatir. The surprising details of this new discovery include how Ibn al-Shatir firmly affirmed the geocentric model, including how he had eliminated the Ptolemaic equant and eccentrics, and the mathematical details of his system were identical to those in Nicolaus Copernicus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.9.37 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Nicolaus Copernicus

Dear Wikipedia,

These articles make it very clear that Nicolaus Copernicus was inspired by the works of Nasir al-Din Tusi (Tusi-couple), Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi (Urdi lemma) and Ibn al-Shatir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.9.37 (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

References

"It has been argued that in developing the mathematics of heliocentrism Copernicus drew on not just the Greek, but also the work of Muslim astronomers, especially the works of Nasir al-Din Tusi (Tusi-couple), Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi (Urdi lemma) and Ibn al-Shatir", "we have no proof of their transmission from east to west", "it is highly unlikely that so many similar techniques were invented independently in the west". Those are the exact phrases from the articles you referenced. I am sorry, but they do not make it "very clear", rather the opposite. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Aristarchus was the first to deduce that the sun is the center of the solar system etc.

Copernicus's manuscripts had referenced Aristarchus in his research, but that reference was suppressed in his final version, thus receiving the credit of this discovery.

This was revealed in The Cosmos series narrated by Carl Sagan, in episode 10, minute 44. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.136.98 (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Influenced by...

Copernicus was undoubtedly influenced by a great many people. Picking out two of the least well known is not a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That can be easily fixed by inserting those people whom you claim to have had more influence on Copernicus than Ibn al-Shatir and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, and not by removing existing ones cited by reliable sources. You also claimed that one reference is not sufficient to establish the claim of influence. If you bothered to check the cited reference as much as you stalk my contributions page, you would have read that Noel Swerdlow, translator of Copernicus’s first astronomical work, the Commentariolus, also arrived at the same conclusion:

"This misunderstanding must mean that Copernicus did not know the relation of the model to Mercury’s apparent motion. Thus it could hardly be his own invention for, if it were, he would certainly have described its fundamental purpose rather than write the absurd statement that Mercury “appears” to move in a larger orbit when the Earth is 90 from the apsidal line. The only alternative, therefore, is that he copied it without fully understanding what it was really about. Since it is Ibn al-Shatir’s model, this is further evidence, and perhaps the best evidence, that Copernicus was in fact copying without full understanding from some other source, and this source would be an as yet unknown transmission to the west of Ibn al-Shatir’s planetary theory". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally, "Old Moonraker" has already added a brief description on this relationship in the body of the article (although it whitewashes the clear-cut plagiarism by this medieval European). In short, none of your excuses to remove my addition is backed by any WP policy, and likewise your claim that it has to be discussed before it is re-inserted. 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting yet more text from the same source isn't the answer. Are you intending to go down the Jagged route? The precedents are not good. I skip lightly over your bad-faith accusations of stalking and return to my earlier point: that singling out these two little-known folk is wrong; essentially, it is WP:OR and indeed POV-pushing on your part William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

At least two scholars that I know have expressed this particular view: (1) George Saliba and (2) Noel Swerdlow. So I'm afraid you are making ungrounded and certainly false accusations of OR or POV here. I also find it ridicoulous that your reject the views of the second scholar just because it has been quoted within the same reference (where does it say that the views has to come from different sources ?). Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ibn al-Shatir builds on the work of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ptolemy, Copernicus builds on the work of al-Shatir, yet it's Copernicus alone whom User:Al-Andalusi accuses of plagiarism. Looks like a clear-cut absence of objectivity, unless there's a reliable source who makes the same point. I didn't find one so I didn't add it, and without verification neither should any other editor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are discussing here what I wrote in my edit summary, which is irrelevant and quite desperate actually. Back to the article, where you claimed that you haven't found another source, meaning that you reject the source I used. Why ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged User:Al-Andalusi's addition of Saliba (2011);[83] I have not rejected it. Was there another source I may have overlooked?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

William has removed the POV tag twice when no consensus was ever reached on the talk page, writing in his second edit summary: "as before: rm revenge tagging". I see two problems here: First is the "revenge tagging" claim, which is clearly a lie given that I already expressed my concerns, backed by a reliable reference, on the talk page and which William responded by removing (not moving, not trimming) the content and then the POV tag. Secondly, is the "as before" statement, it's as if his troubling statements and claims on the talk page are the utter truth in this matter that justifies the removal of any content or tag that he disagrees with by simply invoking the holy "as before". I have restored the POV tag as none of claims is backed a WP policy. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any POV problems relating to the omission of the views of Saliba and Swerdlow documented in your reference could easily be rectified by modifying the section on predecessors of Copernicus to mention them as representatives of one (albeit influential) current scholarly school of thought. Your apparent insistence that the infobox must include the conjectured influence of al-Ṭūsi and al-Shatir if it were an established fact is itself a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, and if it had remained there I would have tagged it as such.

The problem with your single reference is that it has been cherry picked from a large body of literature, of which a substantial portion does not totally agree with it. Although the views of Saliba, Swerdlow, Neugebauer etc. certainly represent one very influential school of thought, they are nevertheless just one extreme from the spectrum of current scholarly opinion. The other extreme, represented by Mario di Bono and I.N.Veselovsky, for example (articles available on-line here and here), is that on the currently available evidence it is just as plausible that those parts of Copernicus's system which resemble al-Tūsi's and al-Shatir's discoveries were discovered independently of the Arabic tradition as that they were inspired by or copied from some as yet unidentified manuscript or publication stemming from that tradition. André Goddu, who tends to agree with di Bono, has a very nice discussion of the issue on pp.261-269 and pp.476-486 of his book Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition.

A view intermediate between these extremes has been expressed by Emilie Savage-Smith in a review of one of Saliba's books (the entire issue of JHA containing this review is available on-line here—WARNING: this is a very large pdf file). She writes:

"As for the hypothesis that there was a causal link between the activities of the later Islamic astronomers and the development of Copernican astronomy, it remains only a hypothesis until the mechanism for such borrowing can be found. Yet the evidence is mounting for some form of connection, especially given the sudden appearance of technical geometric innovations that had a centuries-long tradition in Islam."

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DJW. Disputed information shouldn't be given the treatment of established facts. However, I would suggest that the "Influenced" field should contain names of early astronomers whose works have been referenced by Copernicus in his own writings. The influence of such names should be undisputed and very much established. Some of them are Islamic too, like al-Battani. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had a go at modifying the text on Copernicus's hypothetical Islamic predecessors to include a more explicit acknowledgement of the views of Saliba, Swerdlow et. al. If anybody has read the article by Swerdlow and Neugebauer (as yet, I haven't), they should probably add it to the references cited. As far as I can see, whatever reasonable grounds al-Andalus might have had for disputing the neutrality of the article have now been nullified, so he should now remove his POV tag.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Several subsequent edits had recently transmogrified this to a completely pointless statement about Copernicus's argments against Ptolemy's system supposedly resembling those of al-Tusi and al-Shatir. The original text of this passage was referring to quite specific technical details which have at best a very remote connection to any arguments against Ptolemy's system, and the references originally cited said nothing at all about any such arguments of Copernicus's resembling those of al-Tusi or al-Shatir. I have now restored the reference to the specific technical details in question and readded one of the original citations. Please don't make significant changes to the meaning of this passage unless you have read and understood the cited reference (and preferably all of the other references originally cited).

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativity

The paragraph entitled "Successors" uses the phrase "near universal acceptance today". The theory of relativity treats Copernicus's heliocentrism and heliostaticism as meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In a technical sense, maybe. More importantly, the article incorrectly states that his whole theory was adopted, which is of course wrong; I've tried to fix that up William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

German/Polish controversy

It should be made clear that questions about Copernicus "nationality" are a recent controversy due to Polish history politics regarding territories annexed after WWII. At that time there were no national identities. Copernicus would be Prussian, because he grew up there, returned to the place of his origin and got involved in politics concerning Prussian issues. There is no proof whatsoever that he spoke Polish. The text says he is "postulated to have spoken Latin, German, and Polish with equal fluency". Latin was not a spoken language and there is no backing up that he spoke any Polish at all, nonetheless where he would have learned it. People from that area at that time were generally not regarded as ethnic Germans by Germany, but as Prussians. If he spoke a Slavic language or preferred Slavic surrounding, he would have been enrolled at University on a Slavic corporation. As it is documented, he did not. It's all about modern day propaganda like Israel was always Jewish and there is no Palestinian identity, and Prussia was always Polish and there was no expulsion of a legitimate (German speaking) Prussian population.

Prussia was an entity on its own, that had various dependencies, but never was ethnically Polish and originally Baltic. During the time of Copernicus people predominantly spoke German (Deutsch, which simply refers to a language and does not imply "Germanic") and they did not assume Polish culture or identity, but became protestants in line with developments in northern Germany and Scandinavia. At one point they allied with the Polish king to overthrow the Teutonic Knights, later they clashed with Poland and were subdued similarly to Lithuania. During 300 years of Polish dependency they resisted Polish attempts of Polonization. If people after 300 years of forced incorporation into Poland do not melt into that mainstream language, religion and cultural system, they're clearly not Poles, and wasn't before. Actually, there was a lot of uprising against Poland in Prussia, same like in Lithuania and Ukraine.

A similar controversy would be Bohemia/Check Republic that wasn't German in its core territory, although it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. Simply because it belonged to Germany doesn't make Bohemian people of that time Germans in a contemporary sense. Prussians would have voted for reunification with East Prussia if they could, same as Check Republic would have opted for Independence in the 19th century. Prussia had autonomy within the Polish multi-ethnic feudal kingdom, the status and extend of its incorporation into Poland under legal consideration is disputed.

Modern Poles have no right to make claims or speak on behalf of the Prussian minority. Prussian families with roots in that area still live all over the world in exile. People of that area, whose roots go back before the time of Polish partitions or split of Prussia, generally do not identify themselves with Poland. If they were regarded as Polish by Poland they would be allowed to live in that area. Unfortunately, politics of expulsion with a lot of propaganda about Teutonic Knights and all kind of Nazi horror stories are employed for political reasons. It should be made clear that Prussians with family histories dating back centuries before Polish partitions and who were expelled from Poles and Allies still live all over the world, they have their identities taken away both from Western Germany and Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.19.174 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree to an extent: it is not useful to the reader for the article to explore questions of nationality phrased using the names of modern nations, and the question of which languages Copernicus spoke will be difficult to substantiate. What can however be determined are the locations where he spent his life; specific cities, etc. Some mention should be made of these locations in the lead section of the article. (sdsds - talk) 02:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about adding a second sentence to the first lead paragraph: "Apart from his studies at Kraków, Poland, and his law, medical and astronomical studies in Italy, he lived and worked in Royal Prussia (part of the Kingdom of Poland)." Nihil novi (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Copernicus spoke German, that is out of question and even stated in the article. Kids speak the language of their mother. There is no proof that he spoke any Polish. Please, if anyone can back up why Copernicus is said to have spoken Polish, let us know. 187.153.20.47 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reorganisation of notes and references

This, in my opinion, was such a terrible idea that not a good idea. I have reverted the article back to the version immediately before that change was made. I am quite happy to go through all the subsequent changes to the article and re-implement them.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now completed the restoration of the edits made after this change. Please don't make any similar such major changes to the system of citations and references before first obtaining consensus for them on this talk page.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a lot of work, and I'm sorry it needs to go, but it wasn't a good idea. It made moving text between articles very painful William M. Connolley (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

On further investigation I notice that the change wasn't as terrible as I had originally surmised. If I had realised it was still possible to add citations in-line without editing the notes section as well, I probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of reverting the change and redoing all the subsequent edits. Nevertheless, I can't see that the change provided any advantages whatever over the system it replaced, and it has some very definite disadvantages, one of which you have already pointed out. I therefore stand by my opinion that consensus should have been obtained before the change was made, and should also be obtained before implementing any similar change in the future.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Toruń, not Thorn

In English wiki is Toruń not Thorn, and Toruń was part of Kingdom of Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winooo (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please expand on [84] re "Gdansk vote". If we've argued this to death elsewhere then great, but a link would help William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

An explanatory Gdansk-Vote-Notice can also be find at the end of the (long) header section of this talk page. Winooo likely didn't know it.Henrig (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think either Henrig's version [85] or Skoranka's version [86] are more or less fine. I prefer the later because I don't see a point of the quotation marks around "Thorn" etc. It should just be parentheses. Either way Thorn etc should be included per GD vote.

 Volunteer Marek  14:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "per GD vote"? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the Gdansk/Danzig vote (or if you like per Danzig/Gdansk vote, or per Gdanzig vote etc). Specifically: [87] and [88]. Volunteer Marek  15:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@H: I too didn't see the notice. Thanks for pointing it out. @VM: thanks for the links. OK, so (just to be explicit) the argument is that C was unambiguously Polish, therefore we use the [Polish] (German) version? That sounds reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is English not Deutsch, if anyone wants to read in Deutsch, should change the language on wiki to Deutsch "Thorn" is deutsch translation ,on english wiki its Toruń, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winooo (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We tend to say "German" when talking about the Krauts on the English wiki. But anyway: you've been pointed at the Gdansk principle here. That looks like a reasonable guideline to follow, in order to avoid edit warring over differences of opinion. If you think that guideline should *not* apply, you're going to have to come up with a very good reason. What you have so far isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Krauts, how nice are the Anglos and how peaceful their history. Big joke: They claim the Malvinas (so called Falklands) on self determination right of the boutique settler population there, although it was stolen from Argentina. Brits went to war for Danzig and ethnic cleansing of Deutsch speaking age old population. And even if it's Gdansk, that's Kashubian (like myself) and not Polish.

Archives

I wonder why the archives start in 2004, instead of 2001 like the edits to this page do. It is especially odd since the comments spun off this page to daughter article Copernicus' nationality were returned here when that page was deleted and are in this pages archives. Rmhermen (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel like taking the time to check back that far at the moment, but old archives are sometimes "lost" when an article is renamed (moved). If this article has been renamed, the talk page would likely have been renamed as well, but a couple of old archives may exist with the old name. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No the old material is in the history here but not the archives and the moved material is moved back in the archives already. Rmhermen (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

center of universe critique

I personally think this distinction is just as important as the realization that Earth is not central... However, its going to sound contradictory.

Primarily, there are different divisions of science. For this reason it is crucial that we do not over simplify any sort of scientific observation by focusing on a single scientific spectrum.

In short. Physically, the Earth is (apparently) not at the center of the cosmos. However, philosophically it is the center of the known universe. This is in part due to the fact that all human observation of this data comes from human who are born on Earth...

If that doesn't make sense, or you disagree with me simply because you're jealous... well, you should think about finding a new hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Copernicus was a Priest - according to the Atheist Stephen Hawkings

Its too bad for you out there who deleted my sourced edit 2 years back, but heres the source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DiBjCUibQo4C&pg=PA10 So get over yourselves and add it in.98.176.7.5 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Copernicus studied canon law and eventually became a diocesan administrator within the Church, a lay post. It accepts the possibility that he may have taken orders later in life. Best you read the article for the full picture: it's all a bit complicated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't a priest, he was a Canon. He could not perform the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist and other duties a priest would have. To be a Canon he did have to take a vow of celibacy, and he ran into some trouble when people questioned his relationship with a female housecleaner. As this was at the time that Martin Luther was preaching that celibacy was a non-biblical invention of the Papacy (ex-monk Luther married an ex-nun), the rumors around him and the woman got his bishops attention, wondering if Copernicus was embracing Protestantism (the Bishops investigation proved his Catholicism). Few people at the time made Canon a lifelong choice, as they moved up to positions of greater prestige, but Copernicus stayed a Canon (it is theorized that he did so as it allowed him the funds/time to continue his studies without added duties a higher position would entail).Wowaconia (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Although it had been accepted by some reputable historians in the past, the myth that Copernicus was a priest was comprehensively demolished by the eminent Copernicus scholar Edward Rosen in the early 1960's. A copy of Rosen's article Copernicus was not a priest, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1960 is available online, and a reprint of a shorter article of his, Copernicus' alleged priesthood, first published in Archiv für reformationsgeschicte in 1971, is also available in the google books copy of Copernicus and his successors. Every reputable modern historian I have seen comment on the matter (admittedly a very small number) has accepted Rosen's conclusions, and I'm aware of none who has disputed them. Stephen Hawking is not a historian, and he provides no sources whatever for any of the historical material included in A Briefer History of Time, let alone for his description of Copernicus as a "Polish priest". His brief biography of Copernicus in On the Shoulders of Giants contains at least one egregiously unscholarly blunder (documented here), so I can't see how any undocumented assertions of his should take precedence over what appears to be the current universal view of genuine historians. The Catholic Encyclopedia article is probably more trustworthy, but it's now more than 100 years old, and thus well out of date on this matter.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Religious controversy

Could I suggest that the section 'Controversy' be re-titled 'Religious controversy', and edited for balance? The impression currently given is that all of the opposition to the the Copernican system was based upon religious prejudice, thus perpetuating a long-standing myth. Just as in today's world, opposition came from many quarters, including many distinguished (or at least famous) scholars whose whole life work had been based upon what Copernicus proved to be a false set of presuppositions. Many of these opponents seized upon religious arguments in self-defense, for the whole society was deeply interpenetrated with a Christian world-view and a pre-critical reading of the Bible. Copernicus himself, and later Galileo, also shared this world-view: they could do no other within the cultural framework of their time. What the current article obscures is that those who warmly supported the new paradigm were also just as committed to a Christian frame of reference as those who opposed it - and many of them supported it in Christian terms, as a fresh revelation of the wonders (as they saw it) of the Creator's work being revealed. Galileo (in a later generation) has to be included among these supporters: a committed Catholic and lifelong Christian believer he saw nothing challenging to Christian belief in what he discovered and taught. He had many supporters in the clerical establishment - including the Pope, who moved against him only because of the intense political and ultimately also personal factors that had nothing to do with matters of orthodoxy or dogma. The discussion in the article is remarkably detailed; its limitation is in its lack of balance (no discussion of Christian thinkers who supported and welcomed Copernicus), and insufficiently nuanced presentation of the cultural, political and philosophical framework in which these reactions are set. I'd be happy to provide some qualifying text if that would be helpful. Lhb15 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to what you say. "The discussion in the article is remarkably detailed...". Indeed, we have Tolosani sought to refute Copernicanism... two long paragraphs... Despite the efforts Tolosani put into his work it remained unpublished. And yes, I agree taht academic inertia and professional rivalry were as important as religion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Compernicanism"?

This looks like a typo to me, but I can't change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.56.28 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2012‎

Thanks for catching this typo. William M. Connolley fixed it.—Finell 03:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Predecessors and other distortions

Predecessors

The section on predecessors is very weak indeed. Copernicus was very well educated in the Catholic universty system and was aware of the argument by people like William of Ockham, a Fransican fair, (~1295-1349) and Walter Burley (1275-1357) covering the notions, going against Aristotle, that there could be vacuums and motion inside vacuums (it should be noted the Franisican also wrote out De Morgan's Laws a mear 500 years before De Morgan was born) . He also was aware of Jean Buridan (~1300, ~1358+), a priest, who, among other things, gave a physical notion on momentum and basically stated Newton first law and who, as the wikipedia page on him states “sowed the seeds of the Copernican revolution”. Buridan also proposed earth turned on its axis and pointed out this is an attractive idea because it would require far less speeds given to heavenly bodies.

In addition Copernicus was aware of the Nicole d'Oreme (1325-1382), a Catholic Bishop. The Bishop, among other worthy contributions to knowledge, placed forward arguments as to why, if the earth rotated, one would not need a strong wind blowing as a result of the motion, and why an arrow shot stright up would still come straight down as opposed to going way off due to earths motion (the Bishop, among other things, also developed the first mathematical proof of the divergence of harmonic series). He also knew that Albert of Saxony (~1320-1390), who succeeded d'Oreme, also a Bishop

Copernicus was also aware of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), a Catholic Cardinal, argued in favor of earth rotation on its axis, pointed out earth was smaller than the sun and large than the moon based on observations of earths shadow on the moon during eclipse, and who pointed out that no matter what rotating planet we on, it would seem that everything rotated around us, thus we did not need to trust such observations. The Cardinal also, in his work on infinitesimals and relative motion (which influenced both Libenex and Cantor) claimed that “The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion”. If Copernicus knew that he rejected it because, as we know, he screwed up his theory by siding with the Greeks in claiming his spheres that rotated around the sun were perfectly circular.

When you add up the arguments that came before Copernicus, for the most part elevated by Fairs, Bishops and Cardinal of the Catholic church and taught in the Catholic universities, which Copernicus was well aware of, it is not OK that it is here left out and in its placed untruths are again elevated, like that he started the scientific revolution – what, talk of newtons first law, vacuum's, divergence of harmonic theory proofs, De Morgans theorem 500 years before de Morgan, and all the rest (for these only mentions but a few things) don't count as major contributions to scientific knowledge?

Copernicus, by siding with the Greeks, screwed up his theory such that the math in it was not as good as the math coming out of the earth at center work. He became a hero on the shoulders of a movement the invented “the Dark Ages” and doing all it could to spit on anything Christian, especially Catholic, leaving “enlightenment” as a glory of the Protestant so the distortion of truth would be excepted by those who have a taste for hate – a movement whose height was seen in Gibbons work. Its high time to clean up such unfounded distortion and here, a big help in that direction, would be a a cleaning up of the section on the work of his predecessors.

Second you could clean up the dishonesty in the controversy section – for example the words

“First Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. (No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.) “

are completly misleading – it was well understood in the university system that one did not need to have something push the bodies around in orbits just as mentioned above by the very people mentioned – that is the new physics, far from needing to be rethought because of Copernicus, where already in place prior to Copernicus.

Where is it clearly stated that everything in Copernicus's theory is wrong EXCEPT the idea that earth is not at the center of the universe?? The church, as it was, was quite correct in stating that his system had not been proven correct and therefore should not be taught as though it is fact – had it been taught as fact, then all the kids would learn the earth is glued to a huge, perfectly circular sphere, that rotates around the sun.

It is not the case that all Catholics where good people and lofty and without loads of problems – it is the case that this whole article is colored with a defunct view of hate pointed towards Catholicism by the 19th century bigot scholars who thought doing so was a good idea. Clean it up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.95.2 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Need corection of wrong link

Hi, Please correct wrong link in this article (I have no permission). There is: http://www.domwarminski.pl/content/view/312/433 But it must be: http://domwarminski.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19 Thx DomWarminski (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Place names

In the spirit of the Gdansk vote [89] : "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany." The decision was for Danzig during the period of 1308 to 1945. The nationality issue of Copernicus is well documented in the article [90].--IIIraute (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you please stop going to all these articles in an attempt to revive some old (and best forgotten) edit wars and battleground with respect to naming and nationality?VolunteerMarek 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We are talking of the period between 1308 to 1945 - don't we. So why don't you comply with the vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[91] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[92] --IIIraute (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement: please do NOT revert ⇒ [93] --IIIraute (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Copernicus was born and died in Royal Prussia, a region of the Kingdom of Poland. Therefore his places of birth, life and death within Royal Prussia should be primarily in Polish. Nihil novi (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

At that time, Copernicus' home city of Thorn (today Torún) far dominated by the Polish crown. Copernicus and the majority of the family were German citizens who had come loose from the Teutonic Order and asked for political reasons under the protection of the Polish king. The omission of this fact would suggest that Copernicus had been a Pole - which of course was not the case. It has been found, to this day no writing of Copernicus, which was written in Polish. So I wonder very much claim here is why, he would have spoken Polish. What evidence can be cited? I refer to the German version of this article, which is pleasantly designed objectively and cites especially the essential sources. With the request for revision. There is no evidence that he was Polish. His native language was German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.230.195.55 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm not a registered Wiki user, may I ask you to correct the inaccuracies noticed in this article, whereby German names of the Polish cities Nysa and Gdańsk are put before the Polish ones, i.e.: (1) The family of Kopernik's father hailed from near Nysa in Silesia, which until mid 14th century had been part of Poland, and subsequently acquired by the Kingdom of Bohemia. (2) The name of Gdańsk settlement was recorded after St. Adalbert's death in 997 AD as urbs Gyddanyzc, later on used as Gdansk. Throughout its history Gdańsk was part of Prussia/Germany only between 1793 and 1919. Previously it had been in administration of Teutonic Knights between 1308 and 1454 (as we all know, Kopernik was born in 1473). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.228.215 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Copernicus was born in Poland. Royal Prussia is only provintcion ( in all other articles we wrote provincion like Saksony, Provancia, Banat etc?) He was born in Toruń Polish Kingdom before and today it is Poland! If somebody want more clear like Kingdom of Poland, We can writing that it was Chełmno Voivodeship and it all. And about his nationality... He was not German, He was polish, People from Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom feelt polish even they spoke in Latin, Polish, German or Ukranian. He was polish nationality and Pole. If not He can't do any carrier with support Polish Church and King. This what happend last time in wikipedia is skandal. Marie Curie was France, Frederic Chopin too and Copernicus was German? It is so funny. He was polish nationality. Im Spanish because I'm now in Spain? I was, Im and i will be forever Pole.--Swd (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We are following here long-standing Wikipedia guidelines: the German place names have priority because they were the historical names in Copernicus' times. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all - provide the source. Second - doesn't the term "historical names" mean "names of the past, no longer in use"? I suggest you actually work a little bit on each entry you make - then you can be sure you're following the Wikipedia guidelines. Skoranka (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Danzig-Vote → [94] : "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany." The decision was for Danzig during the period of 1308 to 1945. The nationality issue of Copernicus is well documented in the article [95].

Period between 1308 to 1945 - Danzig-Vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[96] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[97] --IIIraute (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you his spokesman? Because, in my opinion, he needs one. Your absurd reverts are obviously aimed at changing history. If you don't have anti Polish bias, and try to enforce the Vote, how come don't I see you inserting "Miśnia", every time "Meißen" is mentioned. Once you said, you already applied those changes and they are, to use your words, "already taken care of". Was it a lie, or did "something" just come up? My scheduled time for Wiki this month is up. Can't be here 24/7, like you. I'll talk to you in August, unless I find a minute. Skoranka (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is all said - that's what the rules were established for. If you have a problem with them - as you obviously have - bring up a new vote. There is always one side that will be disappointed by the outcome, that's ok, otherwise one wouldn't need a vote - however you should accept the vote of the majority. So please comply with the rules that were established by the WP community. --IIIraute (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Enforcement: "Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism".--IIIraute (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. There are not many needed, but there are unreferenced chunks in the controversy section that prevent this article from being B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

The quote from John Calvin should read: "like a little globe, is placed in the centre."; "globe" rather than "glove".

203.206.159.174 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Done I did Google searches for the two spellings. The glove version was in mirrors of Wikipedia and a mainstream press story. The globe spelling was in a scholarly paper.[98] I sided with the scholar and changed the spelling. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

Please change From: "2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of gravity and of the lunar sphere." To: "2. The center of the earth is not the center of the universe, but only of the lunar sphere."

because Copernicus could not possibly have included anything about gravity in his listed assumptions because no one knew gravity held the planets in place until Newton pointed it out more than 100 years after Copernicus had died.

Friar Broccoli (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done:

This is a verbatim quotation from Edward Rosen's translation of the Commentariolus. There's nothing in the quotation to suggest that Copernicus had any inkling that gravity had any effect on the planets. In a footnote Rosen quotes Copernicus explaining how all heavy bodies tend towards the centre of the Earth along lines perpendicular to its surface. Presumably that's all Copernicus meant by saying that the Earth was the centre of gravity.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I should qualify the second sentence of the above comment. Copernicus did believe that the Sun, Moon and planets each had their own gravity, just like the Earth. In Book I of De Revolutionibus he characterises "gravity or heaviness" as "a certain appetancy implanted in the parts by the divine providence of the universal Artisan, in order that they should unite with one another in their oneness and wholeness and come together in the form of a globe." He then goes on to say "It is believable that this affect is present in the sun, moon, and the other bright planets ..." However, he nowhere gives any indication that he thought of the gravity of any of the Earth, Sun, Moon or planets as extending far enough to have an effect on any of the others.

David Wilson (talk · cont)

The Copernicus Tower

The Copernicus Tower on the photograph is definitely not 'the place where he lived and work'. He lived and work in his curia outside the walls. The tower was just used as a storage... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.131.168 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Death"?

Why cannot I find any clear information on how Nicolas Copernicus died or was executed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.117.86 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

Hello. There is an error with the description of Copernicus' name in the Polish language version (the first sentence). It seems the problem is with the missing closing brackets ("}}"), as a result of which that text currently looks as follows:

({{lang-pl|Mikołaj Kopernik^ⓘ; German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico)

May I ask you to add two closing brackets at the end of the Polish language's description, so that the text would show up as:

(Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik^ⓘ;

Thank you. 93.107.221.230 (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was just someone pointlessly fiddling the order and breaking things in the process. I've reverted that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the Polish version should be first. Why did you change the order, and put German as the first one?

93.107.81.213 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I just restored the previous version. Who cares what the order is? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. So, since you don't care, may I ask you to put the Polish language version as the first one?

(also, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.94.253 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

the sixth part of De revolutionibus

Is the sixth or fifth entry of the listing of parts in De revolutionibus wrong? Or are they the same? -Nathan czh (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

I have now provided more specific detail for the contents of books 5 and 6. Thank you for pointing out these unnecessarily duplicated vague descriptions.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

life

to compare with the german version. there is no info about krakow and his parents were from the german citizenship of Thorn. simple translation: Nicolaus Copernicus was the son of Nicholas Koppernigk, a wealthy copper trader and aldermen in Thorn, and his wife Barbara Watzenrode. The family belonged to the German citizenship Koppernigk the Hanseatic city of Thorn,.... (178.5.158.206 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)).

The famous Copernicus Road in New Delhi

The impact of Copernicus is global and such that even in the eastern fast developing countries like India, roads were named after him post independence. Like the Copernicus Road in the famous Connaught Place [Place] in New Delhi. [Road|thumbnail|right|Copernicus Road] --Souravmukherjee7 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

There is a very slight typo in the following sentence in the "Controversy" section: "...Even in these thing that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

"thing" should be plural

Cheers,

~Peter Xenophon7 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Averroes

In the Education section it is claimed in passing that Averroes influenced Copernicus' conception of the heliocentric universe. I've read in medieval Arabic/Islamic philosophy and am unfamiliar with this claim. It seems like a claim of significance to require a citation. Does anyone know of a source that supports this claim?

Killercrossover (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Killercrossover 2/19/13

Seems a fair point. I've removed:

and Averroes (which later would play an important role in shaping his theory) ""

for now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

Copernicus - Europe's Earth Observation Programme Ssadiquk (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This is an external link with no specific request to edit the article present. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Portraits of Copernicus

Here's a nice resource for Portraits of Copernicus by the University of Quebec in Montreal: http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r14310/Ptolemy/Copernic/menuCopernic.html

Larkusix (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a lock?

For the moment, the relatively low-intensity-edit-warring appears restricted to the (IMO pointless and inflammatory) Nationality section. The article already wears a partial protection lock because of the squabbling about this great thinker was making the article unstable. I think, for the moment, despite the fairly pointless squabble about 1 author and source (It does not matter if we think the author is a fool or a brilliant scholar, the book publisher appears to have through more the latter than the former.) that no lock is needed, as there has been some work on the article, and a lock would stop that.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to lock only the lede? If yes that would make things easier. Larkusix (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Lark, it isn't possible. Locks are per article.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Reference Luther and Norman Davis is nonsense!

Since Copernicus had father Pole, polish name, was a subject of the Polish king, and fought in the Polish defense against the Germans (Teutonic Knights) are not able to be German!

You should write that he was a Pole. Jews only state the nationality of the mother's line. Germans and Poles after the father's line. Copernicus was therefore Pole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.50.231.198 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Every person being a subject of a Wiki article has its nationality stated. Why was 'Polish' removed from this initial sentence : 'Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik (help·info); 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer...'??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.185.83 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't polish, he was a german. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.61.105 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not according to any serious encyclopedia in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.185.83 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why Copernicus would he be a German? This is German nationalist propaganda. According to the many Germans, Poles were killing people in concentration camps and many people on the world believed in is a lie.

Copernicus was only a German mother, but his father was a Pole. He was the subject of the Polish king. He fought on the side of the Poles against the German Teutonic Knights (commanded the defense of Olsztyn). He came from a polish aristocratic (ród szlachecki) family from the village of Koperniki.

Why would he be a German?

For centuries, Germany considered that Copernicus is Pole . Now he has to change it?

I'm sorry for possible any mistakes in English.

Pole

Reverted to "Polish Renaissance astronomer" because as discussed previously it designates a person's nationality not ethnicity (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, fought for the Kingdom of Poland and died in the Kingdom of Poland there is no ambiguity with respect to his nationality even if ethnically he was half German. Astronomer28 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this first on talk. There is an inline comment no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Did you see the section on nationality? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is a pro-German Wiki user. Have seen him on a couple occasions putting through German agenda and ignoring pro-Polish arguments. Ignore the ignorant.

93.107.76.152 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is commonly asserted that his father was a Pole and he spoke Polish. I don't believe there is any evidence for this, if there is please show it. If we have to state national allegiance one should also add some kind of reference to ethnicity. The in the French wiki, the expression used is "était un chanoine, médecin et astronome de langue allemande", in the Italian "Copernico è in genere considerato un polacco discendente da una famiglia di origini tedesche".

I would also suggest a complete rewrite of the section on nationality. To state that "...the nationality debate [is] a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars during the interwar period.[105] is clearly incorrect and hypocritical as this endless discussion testifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wislostrada (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) on the matter? The neutral point of view is not to not state his nationality. Neutrality "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." The vast majority of sources refer to Copernicus as Polish. A small minority don’t assert his nationality. Therefore the NPOV is that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer and the length and tone of the nationality section is inappropriate given the NPOV. Most written sources don’t reference the debate at all. I have changed both to reflect the NPOV. Astronomer28 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By looking through the archives I have found that you are a participant in this dispute for years. So you should know the arguments from all sides.

Copernicus' nationality is a disputed issue, as the sources that you deleted demonstrate. The consensus in this issue, as far as I can tell, is to abstain from making a judgement one way or another in the lede (there even was a hint in the lede with regard to that issue that you deleted, too) and reserve questions of Copernicus' nationality for the 'Nationality' section. Or do you have a better idea?

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a personal opinion on the matter based on my own research. But it doesn't really matter what my opinion is. The NPOV is what counts and the NPOV is that Copernicus was Polish. Astronomer28 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed important hints for editors, which have been in place _for years_. I'll repeat them for you:

Number one: "NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the three introductory paragraphs. These paragraphs represent a consensus on how best to present the essential information in the introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Copernicus is in dispute among editors (see the Talk page and its archives)." (which means the following hint is editor consensus)

Number two, in the first paragraph of the lede: "no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" You even deleted part of that hint, the part about "no assertion of nationality"

So, by asserting a nationality you not only violated the editor consensus, you also misled future editors about what the editor consensus is - by removing the hint about not asserting a nationality!

The right thing to do would be if you respected the editor consensus that has been in place for years and reverted your edit yourself, and then change the editor consensus before you make any edits in the lede. So far you haven't changed the editor consensus yet.

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to deny the Polish nationality of Copernicus (1473-1543), who was born, lived and died in the Royal Prussian Province of the Kingdom of Poland, of which he was a conspicuously loyal citizen — on the ground that people back then did not think in terms of "nations" — while unhesitatingly calling Dante (1265-1321), who had lived 2 centuries earlier, when there would be no Italian state for another 6 centuries, an "Italian" poet.

If most of the world thinks Copernicus was Polish, could it be that they know something that Wikipedia has been unable to acknowledge? Nihil novi (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nivil Novi,

you might have a point if "people back then did not think in terms of "nations"" would be the _only_ ground for abstaining from asserting a nationality for Copernicus.

But this is _not_ the _only_ ground. There are lots of _other_ grounds (--> archives).

Dante is uncontroversial, Copernicus isn't.

Larkusix (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus is not disqualified from Polish nationality by his mixed Polish-German descent. Many prominent Poles have been of German or Austrian descent, including Samuel Linde, Joachim Lelewel, Aleksander Brückner, Rudolf Weigl, Władysław Anders, and the entire Estreicher family.

Copernicus is not disqualified from Polish nationality by having used, among others, the German language. Many Poles have done so while considering themselves Poles. The Polish novelist, dramatist and poet Stanisław Przybyszewski wrote his works in both German and Polish.

Nationality, in fact, is not automatically determined by the language(s) one uses. If that were the case, then Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and other peoples who use English would automatically be Britons.

Latin and some German-language writings by Copernicus survive. He corresponded with Poland's royal court in Latin because Latin was the court's official language. The first Polish author to write exclusively in Polish, Mikołaj Rej (1505-69), began doing so only well into Copernicus' lifetime.

We do know, however, that Copernicus was born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Poland and proved his loyalty to the Polish Crown with his military defense of its Royal Prussian Province against aggression by the Teutonic Knights in the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519-21. Earlier, his first experience of higher education had been at the Jagiellonian University in Poland's capital, Kraków; he later studied in Italy, never in any part of what, some 4 centuries later, would become a unitary German state.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nihil Novi,

there's nothing new in your post (pun intended). All these arguments have been brought forward several times and adressed with counterarguments several times in the discussion that lasted _for years_ on this talk section and that is documented in the archive.

Since you have been a participant in this debate back then, you should also know the points that speak _against_ ascribing Copernicus Polish nationality, or for that matter any nationality in the modern sense at all.

Why should we start this old conflict anew? Why shouldn't we just respect the editor consensus that lasted for years?

Best regards, Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate but closely related issues on Copernicus' nationality: 1) Is Copernicus a "Polish astronomer", based on the prominence and weight of published, reliable sources? 2) Is there a debate about Copernicus' nationality in published, reliable sources? Here's the list I've compiled, roughly listed in the order of importance.

Encylopedias

Encylopaedia Britannica (online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Encylopedia Americana (1986, vol. 7)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

The Oxford World Encyclopedia (1998; Oxford Reference online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online query, 2013)

"child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown"; no mention of debate

Columbia Encylopedia (online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Encylopedia Encarta (2008)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Popular books

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (2008)

"Polish priest"; no mention of debate

On The Shoulders Of Giants, by Stephen Hawking (2003)

"Polish priest" and "Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos, by Dava Sobel (2012)

omits nationality; no mention of debate

The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus, by Owen Gingerich (2005)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began, by Jack Repcheck (2008)

omits nationality; no mention of debate

History of Astronomy (1908), by George Forbes

"a Sclav" [i.e., "Slav"]; no mention of debate

The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution, by Dennis Danielson (2006)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Textbooks

Astronomy: A Self-Teaching Guide, 7th edition, by Dinah Moche (2009)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Astronomy: A Physical Perspective, 2nd edition, by Marc Kutner (2003)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Foundations of Astronomy, 11th edition, by Michael Seeds and Dana Bachman (2011)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

This is not a comprehensive list, but it gives a very good idea of the NPOV ("represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"). Second, with respect to any debate about his nationality in published sources, there was indeed a debate mostly during the Third Reich, but it appears to be rarely mentioned at all (not in any of the sources listed above), so any mention of a debate has to be commensurate with the length of the overall Wikipedia entry. I'm not opposed to including Davies' POV or any other sources in the nationality section, but keep in mind the length of the section, the prominence of the "nationality debate" in published sources, and the NPOV ("Polish astronomer"). Astronomer28 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Astronomer28,

are there any _new_ arguments in it, that haven't been covered already in the discussion that lasted _for years_ in the talk section?

The result of that discussion was the editor consensus (which, by the way lasted for years) to not assert any nationality in the lede. We have a whole nationality section where Copernicus' nationality can be covered.

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the debate is covered too heavily in both versions. At the same time, I spotted some sources tossed out in the reversion. I would suggest a single mention in a very brief paragraph with say 4 or 5 sources from the many given. The debate has to do with society long after his death than with the man, his work, or his influence. It is entirely bored scholars and various nationalists yapping at one another.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That indeed seems to be the case, based on Astronomer28's review, above. On the other hand, I would see great value to somehow (via a footnote? via a link to a separate site?) adding that list to the article. The list is clearly the fruit of painstaking research and deserves to be given to the public. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone get round to looking up the prior discussion of this in the archives? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Astronomer28 was even part of that discussion! Larkusix (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question: there is lots of discussion on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus/Archive_6. Some of it is wrapped around the Gdansk vote William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A28: you provide a long list of sources, but its long rather than deep. For example, you cite A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (2008) for "Polish priest"; no mention of debate. But C was *not* a priest (Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 6#Copernicus was a Priest_-_according to_the Atheist_Stephen Hawkings). SH is a brilliant physicist, but not a brilliant historian. That doesn't make all your other refs wrong, of course, but it does make me doubt how carefully you've assessed them. I don't doubt that a long list of throwaway refs to C being Polish exist, but I doubt that is helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Canon (priest).Volunteer Marek 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Larkusix, with all due respect, I don't need your permission to change the article when it's very clear that the current version does not represent the NPOV and frankly is not congruent with Wikipedia's high standards we all strive for. Nor is it the consensus here so I have as much right to make changes as you. Mind you, I am not in any way opposed to changes by you or anyone else in the version I am presently putting forward but it represents the NPOV better than the current version. Furthermore, you and William M. Connolley bring up the fact that I posted on this very issue 4 or 5 years ago, implying that is a problem (??). As I’ve previously posted, based on my research I believe then, as I do now, that Copernicus should be described as a Polish astronomer; and as I pointed out then, as I do now, it is the WP:NPOV that matters.

Unfriend13 and Nihil novil - I think those are good approaches. I am putting forward a version that includes all sources in the current version but mentions that most scholars regard Copernicus as a Polish astronomer (the majority viewpoint). IMO it is still too long in relation to the full entry and needs editing in either manner you describe, but for now it represents the NPOV better than the current version. Your opinion and input, as well as those of others, would be appreciated.

---

Header:

Nicolaus Copernicus (Polish: About this sound Mikołaj Kopernik (help•info); German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a comprehensive heliocentric model which placed the Sun, rather than the Earth, at the center of the universe.[1]

Nationality:

"While most scholars regard Copernicus as Polish, there has been discussion of Copernicus' nationality, mostly during the interwar period[105]. Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich.[105] Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a "fierce scholarly quarrel in... times of nationalism" and describes Copernicus as an inhabitant of a German-speaking territory that belonged to Poland, himself being of mixed Polish-German extraction.[106] Rudnicki adds that Martin Luther, an opponent of Copernicus' theories, regarded him as Polish and referred to him as a "Sarmatic fool". (At the time, "Sarmatian" was a term for a nobleman of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.)[106] According to Czesław Miłosz, the debate is an "absurd" projection of a modern understanding of nationality onto Renaissance people, who identified with their home territories rather than with a nation.[107] Similarly historian Norman Davies writes that Copernicus, as was common in his era, was "largely indifferent" to nationality, being a local patriot who considered himself "Prussian".[108] Additionally, according to Davies, "there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language".[108] Davies concludes: "Taking everything into consideration, there is good reason to regard him both as a German and as a Pole: and yet, in the sense that modern nationalists understand it, he was neither."[108]

Encyclopædia Britannica,[107] Encyclopedia Americana,[108] The Columbia Encyclopedia[109] and The Oxford World Encyclopedia[110] identify Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Copernicus as a "child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown".[4]"

---

Astronomer28 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC), Astronomer28 (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

wp:TLDR - the utter pointlessness of claiming modern nationality for someone who lived in the time of Copernicus is greatly over-covered in the article, and certainly does not need to be carried in the lead, and most certainly does not belong in sentence 1 of the wp:LEAD.

If we must have this in the lead, consider calling him perhaps "a Prussian born in what is now modern Poland" or "born in what is now modern Poland" or some such. But why does it belong? What in wp:MOS, wp:LEAD makes this very small fact important? Nothing. It bears discussion only as it is important to various nationalist/racist groups later in history, and has nothing to do with the man or his work.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, Copernicus was Prussian much in the same way that da Vinci was Florentine, but today he is known as Italian just like Copernicus is Polish. Calling him Prussian today in the primary descriptor is not even a minority viewpoint in published sources. You don't agree that the majority viewpoint in published sources, the NPOV, is "Polish astronomer"? Astronomer28 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astro - "You don't agree that the majority viewpoint in published sources, the NPOV, is "Polish astronomer"?" - Remember that WP is not about what is right or wrong. It is about what is in the published documents (either silence, or "Polish" or "it doesn't make any sense to talk about it)... and about wp:consensus. Who is right or who is wrong cannot be determined by WP, and really does not matter. I encourage you to remove your focus from the editors and their opinions and focus on the content. This is about reaching consensus about the content of an article. I believe his ethnicity / nationality and the squabble about them are overcovered, and not one belongs in the lead. Neither has anything to do with what he did... they don't identify him... there aren't 12 famous ones in various nations in that era. Therefore there is no need for it in wp:Lead. It is contentious, and makes the article unstable due to wp:TE by various groups or individuals. Since it isn't about him at all, but about those squabbling, there is no need for it in WP.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if there's a misunderstanding, I agree with you completely - let's focus on what's in published documents and that's what I've been pointing out. Based on that, it's pretty clear that the NPOV is that Copernicus is a "Polish astronomer". That may be contentious here, but it is a fact. Some people may not like that fact and altercate here even if there is no squabble in published sources today. We shouldn't avoid putting forth a solid majority position (in published sources) just because it makes some people uncomfortable.Astronomer28 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"let's focus on what's in published documents and that's what I've been pointing out" - No, it really isn't. You have been pointing out your choice of POV among the published documents. This is covered (way overcovered) in the article already. They tenerally say: either silence, or "Polish" or "it doesn't make any sense to talk about it".

We shouldn't put 1 PoV into the lead just because it makes some people comfortable. And we won't, for long. If there are other reasons this 1 PoV needs to be put in the wp:lead, and most importantly into sentence one, then perhaps we will, if wp:consensus is reached. But I have not read any single argument for that. Not one. "A majority of the published sources I cite have my choice of PoV in them!" is not an argument that supports inclusion in the lead, in and of itself. Unfriend13 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, I am not shy about my position and I have been pushing it because it's factually correct. I have shown proof that the NPOV is "Polish astronomer". If you don't agree, please provide proof it's not. Omitting nationality is a POV as much as including it (see my post below). RE: nationality discussion, it makes sense to discuss it here as we're doing it, but it's not being discussed by scholars today and not mentioned in most sources. IMO it's interesting and should be left intact, but statements like "[...]whether, in fact, it is meaningful to ascribe to him a nationality in the modern sense." does not belong unless it's in every other article on Renaissance figures, and the minority POV should be made clear per WP:NPOV. Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would also be factually correct to change the sentence one to say "He was a dying bag of contaminated water that stalked the earth fouling the environment, supporting the murder of helpless militants, releasing foul odors and making strange vocalizations." but it would not be useful.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astronomer28: Returning to the same edits soon after returning from an edit warring block is not good practice. There is a solid consensus that this article should not proclaim the subject's "nationality", and particularly not in the lead. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs yet it appears that in five years your entire focus has been to assert that Copernicus was Polish. Continuing down that path would be disruptive and may lead to a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why this keeps coming back is simple. Copernicus' nationality is not subject to any kind of dispute in the sources. There are two kinds of sources out there when it comes to this question - those which refer to him as a "Polish astronomer" and those which simply omit any discussion of nationality. You basically cannot find any modern source which refers to him as a "German astronomer" - at least not since Nazi era publications. Wikipedia is actually weird in that regard since it widely departs from other standard reference works such as Britannica. So to the extent people keep noticing that, they will keep bringing it up.

The <No nationality in the lede> thing - what is the origin of that? Best as I can tell after going through the archives it was essentially a sop to several very vocal POV pushing editors (most of whom have been banned or topic banned since then, and they even had their sockpuppets banned too) to help make the article stable and end the perennial headache of pointless discussions. But honestly, most of these folks caused all kinds of other trouble and just because at one point Wikipedia was trying to "compromise" with these people doesn't mean that their preferred version should stay. Why exactly is it not controversial to say Kepler was a "German astronomer" but it's not allowed to say that Copernicus was a Polish one? At the very least, let's remove the "German astronomer" from the Kepler article and put the <No nationality in the lede> notice there too.

To be more specific, yes, Copernicus' ethnicity, or his mother tongue or whatever, can be seen as controversial. But not his nationality. That's pretty clear. He was a Polish citizen, soldier and minister. This goes back to the dawn of Wikipedia when user H.J. was aggressively pushing the POV that Royal Prussia was never part of Poland but an independent state "under Polish protection". This was total nonsense that had/has no backing in sources and this user was the first one ever to be indef banned (by Jimbo, for this stuff, plus associated sketchy POV pushing like Holocaust denial). Why exactly is current practice in this article based on pleasing this long-banned user? Volunteer Marek 23:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Luther (1483-1546), who termed Copernicus (1473-1543) a "Sarmatian [i.e., a Polish] fool", was Copernicus' near-exact contemporary. Yet Wikipedia calls Luther a "German monk", though there would be no unitary German state for over 300 more years, until 1871 — while arbitrarily denying the Polishness of Copernicus, loyal citizen of a Polish state that, by the time of his birth, had already existed for 500 years. Where is the logic? If "people back then did not think in terms of nationality", then let's strike "German" from the description of Luther (whom, by the way, history has proven the actual fool). Nihil novi (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing the Martin Luther article because one personally has a strong point of view about another would be wp:tendentious editing, and would probably result in a quick warning, and do no good whatsoever. The wp:other stuff exists argument is not useful in bringing about consensus. I suggested alternatives that would obviate the need to claim nationality, yet make it clear he was born/raised/lived/whatever in what is now Poland if a consensus appears that we need this in the lead.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the point about Martin Luther. And "WP:Other stuff exists" says, among other things: "When used correctly, though, these comparisons are important, as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

There may, however, be merit to your proposal for the Copernicus lead ("make it clear he was born/raised/lived/whatever in what is now Poland"). I invite you to try your hand. Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion was me trying my hand. So far, no one thinks this is a great idea. It certainly does not have wp:consensus, and should not be edited in at this point. I see one (yourself) saying it "may have some merit". I remain of the opinion that this matter of nationality/race/ethnicity/geography does not belong in the lead at all, see wp:lead. It is not needed to explain who he is, it is not an important part of why he is widely known. It is of importance to nationalists/racists/etc., and not to WP.Unfriend13 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, actually I last posted on this topic in 2008, but even if that had been true - even if I devote all my time to Copernicus' nationality - that is my prerogative and it has no relation to the facts/NPOV. Whether 1% or 100% of my edits are related to Copernicus' nationality has no bearing on the NPOV. It's the facts that matter as you point out in WP:RGW. Based on recent comments, I don't see how there is a consensus, much less a solid one. I do agree with your first sentence however. Astronomer28 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that Copernicus/Kopernik was of Polish nationality and mixed ethnicity. His father had hailed from Cracow. Nicolaus was born and died in the Kingdom of Poland, he served his works to the Polish king. Keep fighting for the truth on (sometimes biased) Wikipedia, ye brave Poles! 109.76.146.18 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astronomer28: The true measure of consensus is what is accepted by the many experienced editors who are watching this article, and who have been satisfied for a long time with the current lead that does not attempt to assign a nationality. SPAs often think that the issue that concerns them is unusual. However, experienced editors have seen it all before as there are many articles which have attracted the attention of enthusiasts wanting to promote their favorite nationality. Wikipedia should not be used for that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me summarize the situation as I see it
Position 1
no nationality
supported by group A
supported by X number of reliable, published sources

Position 2
"Polish astronomer"
supported by group B (myself included)
supported by Y number of reliable, published sources

Group A doesn't agree with Position 2 and Group B doesn't agree with Position 1. If Position 2 is adopted, it will not be agreeable to Group A. If Position 1 is kept, it is not agreeable to Group B. So which position should be adopted? Obviously, it seems to me, the position that is supported by the number of reliable, published sources even if group A could be slightly larger than group B in number (which I don't think is the case).Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It often seems that our own point of view is obviously correct. However, WP runs on wp:consensus, and the only thing obvious is that there is an old consensus, that a group of editors is attempting to change the consensus by force because they believe they are "right". It does not matter if neither group a nor group b ever gets any part of what they want. They may both wind up very unhappy. Unfriend13 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Language, Geography

It seems clear to me that he was ethnically Polish... though I doubt that is verifiable... he was born or mainly lived in the area that essentially defines what it is to be Polish... he was intimately involved in the society and government of this "Polish" (ethnic, lingual, geographical) society. Each of these is covered (or massively over-covered) in the article. I do not think any of them approach the level of importance needed to put them in the wp:lead, much less in sentence one. I would like to leave the nationality squabble in its section, and here focus on which, if any of these 3 need to be included in the lead, and which if any need to be included in sentence 1. I, personally, have seen nothing that makes me think any of them belong in the lead at all, and certainly none in sentence 1.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO all of that can be deduced from the main article, but nationality should be included in the lead because that's the standard on WP. Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To what standard do you refer? I have been editing since WP was a pup and know of no such document.Unfriend13 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph - "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

"In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

As I read the opening currently, "Polish" would be an ethnicity reference, and would not belong, but stating his birth/life-region would.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". He was a citizen of Poland and showed his support many times as described in the article. It is relevant and notable which is why it's in the article in the first place. Astronomer28 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed repeatedly. Do you have a proposal?Unfriend13 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Unfriend13, I think the word "Polish" is ambiguous. It can refer to a place of origin , but also to an ethnic origin. That seems to be the main point of contention here. I think that if we would add some formulation that unambiguously refers to his place of origin without any connotation with respect to his ethnic origin, then many people would be satisfied. Copernicus ethnic orgin can then be adressed in some other section of the article, if needed. Now the question is, how to refer to his place of origin? Best regards, Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war of Feb 2013

I have added an "under discussion" tag to the yet-again-edit-warred-in "Polish". Please consider leaving both the "Polish" and the tag in the article. He's dead, it doesn't matter if someone calls him Polish. He can't sue, his feelings won't be hurt, his career will be unaffected. It's just another nationalist/racist edit war.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I removed your tag along with my edit. I meant to keep it, but but I didn't know where to put it. Larkusix (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I struggled with the same issue, Lark... if the text "Polish" was not there where should I put the tag? All is well... I was just trying to "throw some sand on the edit war fires" to tamp them down.:)Unfriend13 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Product, process, policy, note especially " Our core principle guiding this matter is consensus." Not right or wrong or what the majority of published sources say, any deity says, any prophet says, nor how the tea leaves settle.

Also in that same article "The two most important principles after consensus are civility and not to edit-war."Unfriend13 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also added the somewhat-ugly-looking "under discussion" tag to the "other" version of the article.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And it was promptly reverted right back out. Restored it one last time.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus which indeed is unfortunate. If you think there's consensus that Copernicus' nationality should be omitted, put it up for a vote. Astronomer28 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

wp:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Do you have a proposed edit to be discussed? If there seems sufficient interest in making any change at all, then the proposed changes should be discussed, and if there is no consensus (beyond the current: leave it in the body and out of the lead), then perhaps the next step would be a wp:RFC, and then eventually, a wp:!vote... which is not a vote in the traditional sense, just as wp:consensus is not consensus in the traditional sense.Unfriend13 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible lead changes.

I propose for discussion 2 changes. These are simply ideas, and I feel that being wp:BOLD and placing them in the article, or immediately calling for a wp:!vote is an error. There is no wp:consensus that we need to make any lead change at all, though I do think that the Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph does seem to indicate that we should. With that in mind. I am breaking these down into multiple posts for ease of comment. I most respectfully request no walls of text, as they make it amazingly difficult to follow. Please also see wp:talk and use indentation to keep replies clear.

• The 1st is to replace his death date (already in parens at sentence one) with the English-language version of his death city, Frombork. The complex details will be available readily in the infobox and in depth in the article.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In the actual event, I decided I simply didn't wp:like this change, and I did not do it. I don't object, but I don't want to take the date out.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The 2nd is to replace "One of the great polymaths of the Renaissance, " at the start P3 with "Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland, Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of the Renaissance."Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Purists may argue that this should simply be in paragraph 1. Indeed, I would argue the entire lead is actually only P1 of the "real" lead.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, your proposals don't address the disputed items: the omission of "Polish" in the first paragraph of the header and the neutrality of the Nationality section. Please see my post below re: dispute resolution. Astronomer28 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Polish" and the "Nationality" section have nothing whatsoever to do with this talk page section which is about the 2 proposed changes I am considering. My aim is to meet Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph. Please focus (edit to add: in this section) on this proposed pair of changes. Is there any comment you would like to make? It does not address either of the issues you raise, and is not related to either.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• - If there are no objections (other than "It doesn't address my issue"), I expect to make this change on Saturday.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, thanks for making constructive suggestions. One problem with your second proposal - it says "Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland...". That kind of wording however suggests that it wasn't in northern Poland THEN (i.e. 1473). But of course it was, since 1466, or even 1454. So how about omitting the "what is now" part? Volunteer Marek 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it would behoove us to change the body and infobox to say that it was in Poland. I was trusting that the stable parts of the article were correct... as the header must rest entirely on them as it should have no refs within it.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Prussia,Kingdom of Poland is the current infobox, just for example.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else exactly needs to be changed. "Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland" is pretty much like saying "Alabama, United States".Volunteer Marek 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am too ignorant of eastern Europe to know that, sorry, if more knowledgeable editors are content that we can say "Poland" based on "Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland", then it is sure fine with me.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland, (...)"? I smell a nationalist German [PA redacted - WMC]. First of all, the name of the city is Toruń. And whether it is ancient or not (maybe not that ancient as Persepolis...) has nothing to do or influence of Copernicus' later deeds. Reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎109.76.191.245 (talk • contribs)

As I read it, it has different names. But in this context, I think it should be Torun, though I'm open to correction William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Being an ignorant American, I don't know how to type the "n" you are using. Our boring language uses a simplified character set. That said, across many sources I see "Toruń(Thorn)" sometimes and "Torun(Thorn)" sometimes and "Torun". I see no one calling it "Thorn"... so it looks like in boringAmerican it should be, indeed, "Torun".Unfriend13 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So first, IP 109, personal attacks and nonconstructive comments are not really helping here. Let's assume good faith. Second, it's really not so much Thorn vs. Torun (but yes, it should be Torun), but the fact that <whatever you want to call the city> was in Poland at the time, not just "what is now Poland". The phrasing "ancient city" is actually sort of weird and probably should be dropped. I expect that part has some origin in some irrelevant and silly debate from long time ago as well. Again, I don't really see that anything else needs to be changed (dropping "Royal Prussia" and "Bishopric of Warmia" from the infobox might make sense - though that's sort of whether or not people should be described as from "Dothan, Alabama, United States" or just "Dothan, United States" kind of issue) and other than that the proposal seems fine.Volunteer Marek 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing only changes to the lead, not to the infobox. So far, no one has objected to it. My 2 edit proposals are above. No support for either so far. :) Unfriend13 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I support the second (at least), as long as the "what is now" part is omitted.Volunteer Marek 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you did say that, and VM said something similar. I struck my screwup.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The "ancient city" bit I stole from the Toruń ariticle, and I thought it sounded elegant. Seriously, I have no dog in this fight. I only came to the article because of his birthday. :) So far, all I have seen is a nationalist/racist squabble over whether or not he was Polish, which seems ludicrous to me... he was born, helped govern, and lived much of his life in an area that pretty much defines what it is to be Polish. *shrug*Unfriend13 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Modified proposal based on more knowledgeable editors

• The 2nd is now to replace "One of the great polymaths of the Renaissance, " at the start P3 with "Born in the city of Torun, Poland, Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of the Renaissance."Unfriend13 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Alternately, we can use the actual character set of the region and make it Toruń.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-on proposal

I propose to move P3 up, appending it to P1. As above, unless there is an actual objection in terms of violation of existing wp:consensus or other guideline or new consensus against, I expect to make this change on Saturday.Unfriend13 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, not as part of my work, I think P2 should be expanded, and P3/p4 need(s) to be created, covering his other notable works (substantial).Unfriend13 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained and undiscussed revert and odd additions

The work was promptly removed, and some fairly weird text added.Unfriend13 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"who formulated Gresham's Law in the year of Thomas Gresham's birth." - was added. This does not appear in the body, and does not, therefore, belong in the lead. Unless there is some need, I will restore my edit tomorrow. Currently, we do not have anything in P1 to address the P1 need to explain who/where he was. This is a minor thing, and obviously, if every edit is going to be promptly reverted, there is no need to put it back in. I hope the reverting editor will explain in terms of WP guidelines, why the edit was reverted without discussion.Unfriend13 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re this. I thought there was some agreement on some changes to the lede worked out above.Volunteer Marek 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gresham's law isn't even mentioned in the main body, and off course not in this discussion. The addition of Copernicus defense of Allenstein against the Teutonic knights is also not mentioned in the discussion at all (I think it's much too unimportant for the lede). Please don't claim these changes correspond with the discussion. As the initial version is the result of an intensive discussion (and a longstanding consensus), please discuss changes at first and in detail. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S.:"Some agreement on some changes" - probably, but not these changes

P.P.S.:Unfriend13 made some changes corresponding with his suggestion above ([99]), he was reverted immediately, thus it seems, the discussion has not led to a new consensus.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gresham's law most certainly IS mentioned in the main body. It would be quite weird if it was omitted. And yes, I think it's important enough for the lede, as is Copernicus' military career. It shows that he was more than an astronomer, but a true Renaissance man.Volunteer Marek 08:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*As yet, no explanation of why my edit was reverted. Would the reverting editor please respond? Otherwise I will restore it. I will leave the "Gresham's law" (and I have no idea why it did not appear on my search of the text, it is there) as a para of its own, at the bottom of the lead, for the edit warriors to squabble over. And WAY below the level of importance to make it into the wp:lead. Unless there is a WP-guideline-based objection, or a wp:consensus, I expect to restore the edits I made to P1, leaving the rest of the edit-war material in place.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For me the removing of Copernicus nationality (or citizenship, or loyalty to Poland - his place of birth and living) is continuation of Nazi Germany propaganda/conspiracy attempting to deprive Poland very important part of heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.16.8 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

*B-class I think, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale -- Matthead discuß!   O    21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) A-class While there needs to be some refinement of the article, I think this article could be a featured article with a little work. I disagree with Matthead since I do not see any sigificant gaps in the article's material. --chemica 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Article is comprehensive but only has 3 inline citiations. It would not be suitable for FA, but could possibly clear GA. Setting quality to B-class for now. I would recommend nominating this article for GA and see how it does. Kaldari 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Some sources indicate that Copernicus believed that the Earth revolves around a center near the sun rather than revolving around the sun itself. This is not specifically addressed within the article. As such, a continuing discrepancy appears to be outstanding. Please advise. -- Bill Nye OU (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)