Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Dispute Resolution Request

I don't see any consensus on or the possibility of solving the disputed issues without outside help. I would like to file a dispute resolution request WP:DRR. I am leaning towards formal mediation. Any thoughts? Astronomer28 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there is already a long-documented wp:consensus (edit to add: in the matter of adding "Polish" to the lead), the dispute is already resolved. So far, there is very little indication of widespread interest in making a change.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I do support the removal or sharp trimming of the "dispute about nationality" section. I see this all the time in articles about famous or infamous (or both) people... where partisans of a particular nation, religion, social/politcal POV attempt to include or exclude the subject person from a group, type, class, etc. Unless it actually has to do with the subject, these issues are about modern society, not about the subject person, and do not belong. The entire nationality thing is modern, and long post-dates the impact of Copernicus and his work. The modern squabble about his ethnicity or which country could claim him might deserve a mention, as it does in fact reflect on our society and this is an encyclopedia... but I am dubious.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"So far, there is very little indication of widespread interest in making a change" (Unfriend13). False conclusion. There has been a huge interest from Polish side, what the ever recurring edit attempts show. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.191.245 (talk • contribs)

There is indeed a group that wants to put "Polish" into sentence 1 of the lead. A vocal group, possibly millions of people. There is no "widespread" interest in making a change... that is WP editors interested only in the Encyclopedia, not in any particular position.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to you Unfriend13 to make a table with historical facts regarding to what nation/culture Copernicus belongs we will see what German side will say from their position and what Polish side can say. Next you can leave the table for Wikipedia readers to judge how strong the arguments are or adjust objective/mathematical way what should be put in the first sentence and/or section nationality. In any other way it is just spinning a infinite thread of nationalistic propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

POV check -> Header and Nationality

The Header and the Nationality section are in dispute. Neither corresponds to the NPOV. There is no WP editor consensus for either section.

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomer28 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2013

And yet the wp:consensus is available in the archives, and see extensive discussion above, where the entire wall of text below is duplicated.Unfriend13 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Header

1) The omission of Copernicus' nationality in the first sentence of the header is not the NPOV in published, reliable sources. Sources (not yet comprehensive):

Encylopedias

Encylopaedia Britannica (online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate [see Nationality section below]

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

2) The inclusion of "Polish" is also in accordance with Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph: "[context should have] the country of which the person is a citizen[...]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 for the Polish Crown many times as described throughout the article.

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomer28 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2013

Nationality

The section is descriptive of the minority view but does not clearly state it. Furthermore, most sources don't even mention a dispute or a debate (see above sources). However, the dispute did happen and many people find it interesting, so if it is to be included it should be commensurate with the length of the overall Wikipedia entry and clearly delineate minority and majority (NPOV) positions. The minority position takes up nearly the whole entry. A better representation of the NPOV might be:

There has been discussion of Copernicus' nationality, mostly during the interwar period. Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich. Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a "fierce scholarly quarrel in... times of nationalism". While most refer to Copernicus as Polish, some do not ascribe nationality, and others have noted his German ties.

Notes:

Astronomer28 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC) (Edited, 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Proposed Changes
I haven't seen any opposition to the proposed changed (nationality section) and have shortened it considerably. Astronomer28 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall, the abbreviated version (since reverted) does seem an improvement. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the proposed paragraph above? Astronomer28 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that part of the discussion before. However, I disagree. The current consensus version explains in detail why the nationality of Copernicus is/was disputed and why scholars suggest not to use the modern understanding of nationality to a person living in the 15th century. Your version shortens the whole section into a vague "most call him Polish and the Nazis disputed that". That's not the way it is. BTW, could you please cite where exactly Burleigh claims, this dispute arose "at the time of the Third Reich"?

At least, we have a whole section about his nationality, we should use that section to present different views in a neutral way. There's no need to shorten it down the way you suggest. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"scholars suggest not to use the modern understanding of nationality to a person living in the 15th century" In fact most sources refer to Copernicus as a Pole (the NPOV).

Burleigh does not claim the dispute arose at the time of the Third Reich. Pgs. 279-280: "The quartercentenary of the death of Copernicus presented the regime with a further opportunity to appropriate the great by way of self-celebration. In 1941 [Walter] Frank introduced a Copernicus Prize and requested the production of monographs on the astronomer[...] Dispensing with 'Polish pseudo-science' that had claimed Copernicus as a Pole, Frank made off with the astronomer in to the symbolic realm. Copernicus was 'the proudest ligitimisation' of "German leadership in this region'[...] For the totally insignificant battle over the nationality of Copernicus see Klessmann, Die Selbstbehauptung einer Nation, p. 51, and from a large range of earlier works, Adolf Warsuchauer, Die Geschichte des Streites um die Nationalitat des Koeprnikus (Berlin 1925)."

If the sentence causes confusion, I'm fine with changing it to "Historian Michael Burleigh, in describing the Third Reich's relations between the Nazi regime and contemporary scholarly experts on Eastern Europe, describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle".

Most people here agree that the nationality section is too long. Astronomer28 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to object here. The current version by Astronomer28 is definitely too short, biased and fails to explain the arguments on both sides. At the same time I concur with 207.112.105.233 that the article should have a list of the Polish arguments and the German arguments so that the reader can judge for his own.--walkee^talkee 23:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Walkee, most sources don't mention any nationality dispute. Also, the NPOV is that Copernicus is Polish. That's why the section should be short and the NPOV must be made clear. Astronomer28 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV stands for neutral point of view. In a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. Your version is deliberately trying to suggest that the nationality dispute of Copernicus is just a fabrication of Nazis. This idea is both false and manipulative. Should you not become more reasonable, stop the reverting to your version and seek real consensus for further actions, I don't think there remain more ways than dealing with you with admin blocks.--walkee^talkee 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see my posts above, including one from February 20, 2013. The NPOV is not to omit his nationality. Neutrality represents all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in published, reliable sources. Most sources refer to Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer". That is the NPOV. The culmination of the dispute in scholarly circles ended with the Third Reich and it should be mentioned. Let's not whitewash history. Astronomer28 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a book from 1834 (a hundred years before Nazism):

"Whether Copernicus is to be called a Pole or a German has been and is still a matter of dispute, and has been managed on the side of the Poles with the utmost bitterness and passion."

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ceQZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA488#v=onepage&q&f=false

In "A History of Poland" from Norman Davies, the author describes how his dispute was carried out in 1873 at the celebrations of the forth centenary. He writes "a debate which has raged with pointless fury every since." Further he writes hat Copernicus described himself as a Prussian. This source is currently used in the article and used for your point of view as well: that although Copernicus had German as his mother tongue, he also probably knew Polish. --walkee^talkee 17:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Walkee: This is interesting what you wrote: "." Further he writes hat Copernicus described himself as a Prussian." Where Norman Davis found this description? It is possible however, at Copernicus time there were two Prussia (Royal Prussia truly Ziemia Chelminska, which was never Old Prussian (Balst) territory), and the future Ducal Prussia (territory of Old Prussian i.e. Balts) SIZED by Teutonic Order. Later, but later, Prussia become synonym to the whole aggressive imperialistic state. Thus because Royal Prussia was integral part of accident and current to Copernicus live, Kingdom of Poland. How you would interpret the "citizenship": Prussian. Should it not to be Royal Prussian, or better Mazovian or Chelmian :). Norman Davis, although Polish historian does not get those facts for consideration. Some nationalistic Germans like it. For them Prussia is only one - the big aggressive imperialistic pretending to posses everything around. For Polish name Prussian unfortunately always will associate in first place with the imperialistic state which was the enemy power guilty of 150 years of Poland partition. I hope it is for you clear why every Polish guy will oppose your vocabulary. If you are objective and looking for peace stop forcing such mixing of meanings. In the best Copernicus describing himself as Prussian would not associate himself with the future Ducal Prussia from 1525 (at that time Teutonic Order State), which was treat for his region Ziemia Chelminska. Naming the Ziemia Chelminska Royal Prussia could have political reason, as Kingdom of Poland wanted rest of the Old Prussia inside the kingdom. --207.112.105.233 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There was already a proposal as follow: "I propose to you Unfriend13 to make a table with historical facts regarding to what nation/culture Copernicus belongs we will see what German side will say from their position and what Polish side can say. Next you can leave the table for Wikipedia readers to judge how strong the arguments are or adjust objective/mathematical way what should be put in the first sentence and/or section nationality. In any other way it is just spinning a infinite thread of nationalistic propaganda" We will do the table and we will see how vague the German pretences are.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Astronomer28: The nationality dispute is much older than the Third Reich. To simplify this by mentioning the opposing view only as if it was some ugly Nazi theory is biased and for sure not neutral. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is older than the Third Reich, but the section should be shortened as discussed. I'm fine with including its origins but much of the dispute and its culmination was reached during the Third Reich, so that definitely needs to be mentioned. The current version is too long and biased. Astronomer28 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am curious about the statement: "The nationality dispute is much older than the Third Reich" Could HerkusMonte give an review of the story? Where and who started it? If really it happened I believe it was the Prussian/Germanic state.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead proposal

I believe that the following version for the article lead would place Copernicus geographically and give more information about his life and achievements, without engaging in debate over nationality. (Please disregard "note 1", which is some sort of flotsam that I was unable to delete.)

Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a heliocentric model of the universe which placed the Sun, rather than the Earth, at the center.

Copernicus was born, lived and died in the Royal Prussia region of the Kingdom of Poland. He studied at Jagiellonian University in Poland's capital, Kraków, and subsequently at the Universities of Bologna, Padua and Ferrara, in Italy. During the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519-21, Copernicus defended Olsztyn (Allenstein) and Warmia (Ermland) at the head of Polish troops against the invading Teutonic Knights.

The publication of Copernicus' book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), just before his death in 1543, is considered a major event in the history of science. It began the Copernican Revolution and contributed importantly to the rise of the ensuing Scientific Revolution.

One of the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was also a jurist with a doctorate in law, a physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classics scholar, translator, artist, governor, diplomat and economist who formulated Gresham's Law in the year (1519) of Thomas Gresham's birth.

Notes:

Nihil novi (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I think using "Royal Prussia region" instead of just "Royal Prussia" or "region of Royal Prussia in the Kingdom of Poland" sounds strange, but that might be purely a matter of taste.

2. It should be sufficient to mention the different universities, adding the states where these universities were located is redundant.

3. Copernicus' role in the Polish-Teutonic war was rather unimportant (too unimportant for the lede). It's one of the arguments used to substantiate his Polishness and thus just a way to circumvent the consensus not to determine a nationality in the lede. We shouldn't start to add such proxy wars to the lede, it would just end in another endless debate on which counter-argument has too be mentioned too.

4. I have no idea why Thomas Gresham is that important. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with this summary by HerkusMonte, except point 2. His universities are mentioned in the infobox Why do we mention the universities again but not his education? His education (degrees) is hard to find in the article and more important than the last paragraph, in which unscientific hero worshipping takes places. Nihil novi's insistence on pressing his/her biased version into the article with constant reverts is a permanent problem. It's not finding a version that people accept that are not Polish patriots and, with that in mind, it's distasteful calling his/her proposed version a "NPOV version".--walkee^talkee 19:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "Royal Prussia region of the Kingdom of Poland" is synonymous with your suggested "region of Royal Prussia in the Kingdom of Poland" but is more graceful.

2. Not every reader of "Copernicus" will know where Jagiellonian University is located (in Kraków, Poland); a few may also not know where Bologna, Padua or Ferrara are (in what is now Italy). This geographical information adds clarity.

3. Copernicus' role in the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519-21 in itself says nothing about his nationality. Tadeusz Kościuszko fought in the American Revolutionary War though he was not an American. The information about Copernicus' military experience does, however, further show the breadth of his abilities as a Renaissance man (Copernicus' contemporary, Leonardo da Vinci, another quintessential Renaissance man, likewise took an interest in matters military).

4. You are right about Thomas Gresham: he was less important in the history of "Gresham's Law" than was Copernicus, who wrote about this fundamental law of economics four decades before Gresham famously described it to Queen Elizabeth I of England.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Royal Prussia is not important at all. At Copernicus live it was just part of Kingdom of Poland and that is important. Kingdom of Poland is important not its department name. Royal Prussia introduced someone who believes it would confirm some German connection of Copernicus. Meantime the Prussians were Balts as Lithuanians and Latvians are. The name was taken by Teutonic Knits for secular duchy and was from the start fief of Polish Kingdom (1525). Only in 1701 Prussia become independent and much later in 1871 become part of Germany. Second, the German language which was Copernicus' mother language is not issue in nationality matter. The German language is used also in Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg and Switzerland. No one will get an idea to name a person born in for example in Switzerland and speaking German to name German scientist. The same should be applied to Polish King subject in XV century in particularly that the family Watzenrode were in Poland for at least few generations. Following the non existing citizenship term but loyalty to sovereign the engagement of the Copernicus and his ancestors to Polish King is important. Beside during Copernicus live-time did not existed single Germany state, there were many of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.16.8 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nihil - I do not support this proposed, simply because it does not meet Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph. This is a minor point, and I have no interest in the rest of the edit war. Please see the P1 proposal above, that you reverted without explanation.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit lost in this discussion, what is P1 proposal?

Anyway,

1. On the Royal Prussia thing, just say once "Royal Prussia, a region of Poland", then use Poland everywhere else. Same for the Bishopric of Warmia.

2. Agree with Nihili

3. Herkus, you're being paranoid. So we have this injunction against mentioning nationality in the lede. Basically a sop to some long gone edit warriors, and despite the fact that most sources describe him as Polish. Ok. Fine, I understand the idea of compromise. But what you're saying now is that all other potential information about Copernicus needs to be held hostage to that injunction and that we may not include in the lede ANYTHING that MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST that Copernicus' nationality was Polish (which it was). That's plainly silly and it's really taking things to far. As it happens, the fact that Copernicus was a polymath who was not only an astronomer but also an economist and a military commander IS very notable. As a military commander he fought for Poland, because, you know, that happened to be the nation he was a citizen of. Tough noogies for the people who want to hide the fact that he was a citizen of a particular state. Blame history which wasn't nice enough to make Copernicus a citizen of the Teutonic State. Let the info be.

4. Disagree with Nihili. Gresham's Law is pretty famous and by extension, so is Gresham. What we have here is an original contribution of Copernicus to economic theory, though another guy got credit. I can understand writing it more succinctly but the info should be kept. Also, as it happens, Copernicus, in the same work, formulated an early version of Quantity Theory of Money (though there there was a person or two who did it before him - Copernicus' version was more "modern" and "formal" though). This is in some ways even more important than Gresham's Law as the QT is still in every Macroeconomics textbook out there, and underpinned at least one major school of thought in the 20th century (Monetarism). So I would suggest adding that in as well.Volunteer Marek 18:50, 6 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) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus on Google search

When running a search on Google for 'Copernicus', I get returns coming on with the Wikipedia article at the top. On the right-hand side there comes up an infobox consisting of the summary on Copernicus from Wikipedia with his picture and a few bullet points.

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=5&gs_id=1b&xhr=t&q=copernicus&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=coper&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.d2k&fp=1b42ec4e34ac43d8&biw=1129&bih=725

Now, there is a point on nationality, which reads 'German, Polish'. That is clearly an inaccuracy, as Copernicus was of Polish nationality with mixed (Polish/Silesian-German) ethnicity. Just let me remind that there had been no single German state until 1871, hence, no German nationality at the time when Copernicus lived, whereby the Kingdom of Poland had existed since AD 1025 (the Duchy since AD 966).

Below the infobox there is an option for reporting mistakes. I have been doing same, but to no avail (so far).

Does anyone know a more effective way to make Google change inaccurate info?

194.69.198.227 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazi role in nationalism dispute

Do not remove the inclusion of the Third Reich / Nazi Germany in the Copernicus nationality dispute.

While the dispute did not begin during Nazi Germany’s regime — the beginnings of the dispute can be traced to as early as 1807 when Johann Gottfried Schadow's bust of Nicolaus Copernicus was placed in the Walhalla Temple; 1873, Germany claims Copernicus is a German (Owen Gingerich, The Copernican Quinquecentennial and its Predecessors: Historical Insights and National Agendas, 1999); these facts can be mentioned in the Nationality section) — its intensity and culmination did.

Walter Frank, the Nazi director of the Reich Institute for History of the New Germany and a protégé of Alfred Rosenberg, established a Copernicus Prize in occupied Poland during World War II, called Copernicus ‘the proudest legitimisation’ of ‘German leadership in this region’ and claims of him being a Pole ‘Polish pseudo-science’ (Michael Bruleigh, Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich, 1991). Judges for the Copernicus Prize included Albert Brackmann himself (favored by Hitler).

Asserting that Copernicus was a German was important to high-level Nazi historians and is an integral part of the dispute.

Astronomer28 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Describing Copernicus as German was state of the art in the 19th and early 20th century, nothing the Nazis influenced or initiated. To condense the debate to a matter of Nazi POV is extremely biased and delusive. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I think of the changes:[1]. The inclusion proposed is a truism, because it is clear what position they would hold. Similarly the position of the Communists in Poland would be almost as obvious too. Although if we extend it--and I'm increasingly considering this option including creating an article on the nationality dispute that could distract advocates from uglifying the rest of the article with advocacy--we could include these issues as well as including parts that try to bust out to the rest of the article. I note that there is a systematic bias of the article, influencing many other parts of the article of (1) spreading arguments for his Polish-ness into the article, (2) exaggerating and glorifying Copernicus. Probably (1) increases because of (2), and (2) increases because of (1).--walkee^talkee 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you HerkusMonte are strong advocate for German pretenses to Copernicus. Although you can be right that the Nazis did not initiated the line, and maybe they did not intensive it, but my question is if you relay see any realistic foundation to this pretenses? If so let discuses it point by point, if not let fix the chapter Nationality. --70.28.16.8 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not a strong advocate of German "pretenses" of Copernicus nationality. I'm a strong advocate of presenting the nationality debate in a neutral POV and I support to maintain a consensus version that was stable for years instead of discussing the same nationalist POV again and again. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also for NPOV so I am for to present two different point of views in systematic way with all available resources. However I am against so call eternal "consensus", which, as seen from the Talk Page is no more consensus. The discussion will be over when both sides will be able to introduce their (of course scientific, and reasonable facts) side by side. Beside, I would be interested what modern, serious English encyclopedia says Copernicus was German. If there exists none, the side by side argumentation would be only courtesy for oponets.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I can not edit the locked article as no-registered user but I strongly protest against HerkusMonte, Berlin-George, and Walkee activity. Instead answer to simple questions: Which reasonable English encyclopedia says Copernicus was German? What they assume saying Copernicus was Prussian? Or why the issue of German speaking loyal subjects (in present term citizens) to Polish Kingdom is contradiction to Polish nationality? They keep silence and at the end start editors war. This is not reasonable behavior. --207.112.105.233 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the archives. All this has been discussed in all details. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@HerkusMonte: It is very vague talk:"All this has been discussed in all details." To simplify meantime our peruse let me know what chapter/segment of the archive would you recommend to read regarding question Which reasonable English encyclopedia says Copernicus was German? Until there are non the only reasonable statement would be Copernicus was a Polish with some German ancestry. More specificly his mother was from a German family settled for generations in Poland. That would be all - no more or less than a Polish ancestry of Angela Merkel.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We have five sections (!) only dealing with his nationality, I'm afraid you can't avoid to read them. You are also missing the point: Nobody wants to call Copernicus "German", all we say is that there was a dispute in the past (and no, not only in the Nazi era) and that the modern understanding of "nationality" is not fitting the life of a 15th century scientist. Or, as the German version describes it: To claim him for a single nation would ignore significant aspects of his life. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"[T]he modern understanding of 'nationality' [does] not fit... the life of a 15th-century scientist." The Wikipedia article on Leonardo da Vinci, who was born 21 years before Copernicus, calls him an "Italian", though Italy did not exist as a nation state at the time — would (like Germany) not do so for another 400 years — while Poland at the time had already been a nation state for 500 years! Nihil novi (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody ignores the "significant aspects of his life". There is mentioned that his mother was from German family which settled in Poland for generations. Speaking German or, in fact any other language, does not help the intelligence. However living, be educated and working inside particular country is essential. HerkusMonte you balancing something which is significant with the thinks which are absolutely essential. Or maybe you assume there would not be any attachments in Poland if there would not be German settlements in Polish towns. Or that would not be Jagiellonian University if there would not be German language spoken. Or any Polish person would not make systematic scientific effort if there would not be German culture in Polish towns. That would be lovely chauvinism, and it is, if most Germans think above way saying: "To claim him for a single nation would ignore significant aspects of his life."--70.28.16.8 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to start attacking each other on that level. However, let me just remind you, that the version you are attacking is the result of a heated discussion and a longstanding compromise - and that I wasn't even involved in creating that version at all. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody attacking you. It is just discussion about possible POVs. Although the German national anthem words had been changed in 1952 the words: "Germany, Germany above everything, Above everything in the world," are feel up to now in many extremist attitudes. It must be stooped. Regarding "attacking the result of a heated discussion and a longstanding compromise" - there is nothing ethereal and is presently changing for different form. Seems to me are more people for change than sustain. I understand your disappointment but I attempt to show you the opposite party point of view hoping you will understand why other people do not want the old version. --70.28.16.8 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with other users here that attempts during Nazi era to show Copernicus as German are very important subject that we need to cover in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

...does that mean that the ZDF (the independent public-service German television broadcaster, founded by the German federal state) and its television series "Unsere Besten" (100 Greatest Germans), for example, is "Nazi"? --IIIraute (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That shows how strong the Nazi propaganda is still inserted into German public heads (it was a public vote). As you see here nobody says Copernicus was a German. The best the obstinate pro German proponent can get is the nationality should be omitted. Neutrally all arguments pro and con should be systemized and sourced, obviously this is not a favorite think for who recognize the math will micronize his claims.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

...well, "nobody" is saying that, despite those historians arguing that he was in fact more German than Polish.[2] The Point is that Copernicus' nationality has for a long time been a source of argument between Germans and Poles: "Viewed in Poland as one of the nation's greatest figures, Germans also consider the man to be one of their own."[3]. Neat solution: The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, for example, which is an important German research funding organization and the largest such organization in Europe, together with the Foundation for Polish Science do bestow the "Copernicus Award" every two years to two researchers, one in Germany and one in Poland, for outstanding achievements in German-Polish scientific cooperation.[4] --IIIraute (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@ IIIraute 1)- "despite some historians arguing that he was in fact more German than Polish." "some historians" that means exactly who? This is very vaguely. Let me know what arguments they use. 2)- "He was born in 1473 in Torun, which is now a Polish city but had been ruled under both Polish and Prussian governance in the past." At the time of Copernicus Prussia does not existed yet, there was only Teutonic Order, and Torn was not under the Teutonic Order governance at the Copernicus time nor under Prussian Duke after 1525. Prusian Duke was vassal of Polish Kingdom anyway. Beside Copernicus father was from Krakow and his grandfather Lukas Watzenrode (his uncle has the same name) frighted against Thermionic Order as Copernicus and his uncle did later. Next Germany are not the same as Prussia. There was many German states at that time. So where is a sense calling Copernicus a German, German speaking people still living in Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Switzerland. So where is the argument?--70.28.16.8 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

HerkusMonte removed two historical facts from the article: 1)Copernicus studied at Jagiellonian University in Poland's capital, Kraków, 2) During the Polish-Teutonic War (1519-21), Copernicus defended Olsztyn and Warmia at the head of Polish troops against the invading Teutonic Knights. It is against neutrality/objectivity. He does not have consensus on it. Also it seems to me here is close to vote out that the Nazi attempts to Germanize Copernicus should be included in article. There was a proposal to organize table with con and pros of both sides. It seems HerkusMonte prefers Edit War. I do not know how to straight out HerkusMonte behavioral a but maybe somebody knows how ask for act the administrators for tabled organized pros and cons. HerkusMonte become annoying despite several invitation to exchange arguments in systematic way, he has no consensus to stop new editions.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

World Book Encyclopedia

In Norway, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer.

The World Book Encyclopedia:

"Copernicus, Nicolaus, a Polish astronomer, developed the theory that Earth is a moving planet." [5] I hope this will be helpful for you !!! Bye. --2.33.180.52 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV in nationality section

We are currently facing an attempt to rewrite the nationality section. We should try to end the ongoing editwar, so please outline the reasons to find a new version here once more. And please try to avoid comments about German chauvinism, rants about "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles" and stuff like that. The current version was stable for almost 3 years [6] , the last major edit was made by User:nihil novi on 8 May 2010. Would be interesting to know why nihil has changed his mind about the neutrality of a section largely created by himself. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop editwarring until we find a new consensus. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attribute your views to me. I sometimes edit, for intelligibility, texts with which I do not necessarily agree.

Throughout these discussions, you have avoided responding to serious questions and instead have endlessly repeated a mantra about a "consensus" that is in fact at odds with prevailing informed opinion in the world.

If a "Nationality" section is needed in this article, something like the following version (with its corresponding numbered notes) probably suffices:

"There has been discussion of Copernicus' nationality, mostly during the interwar period. Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich. Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a "fierce scholarly quarrel in... times of nationalism". While most sources refer to Copernicus as a Pole, some do not ascribe nationality, and others note his German ties."

Nihil novi (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

...and some attest more than just "ties": "Contrary to Polish claims, Copernicus's German origin is established (the paternal family stems from the diocesan country Neiss in Silesia). Like his elder brother Andreas, he defended the concerns of Ermland against the Crown of Poland..."[7]. --IIIraute (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, so a German (de:Walter Greiner, b. 1935) physicist (Classical Mechanics: Systems of Particles and Hamiltonian Dynamics) disagrees. Let's leave it to historians and social scientists, huh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

...you mean the "historians arguing that he was in fact more German than Polish."?? → [8] The point is that Copernicus' nationality has for a long time been a source of argument between Germans and Poles: "Viewed in Poland as one of the nation's greatest figures, Germans also consider the man to be one of their own."[9]. That's a fact! - and not for us to judge. --IIIraute (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A compromise is hard to find and sometimes hard to stand. However, the compromise version was stable for almost 3 years and largely a result of your own edits. Your new version is not a compromise, but clearly takes sides. It tries to discredit the opposing view as a matter of Nazi POV („in the times of the third Reich“) which is completely absurd. And it also tries to put the „Polish aspects“ of his life into the lead, while other aspects aren't mentioned. Rather obviously not neutral at all. Unfortunately you are not even trying to find a NPOV version but instead you are continuing to editwar and ignore any dissenting opinion. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

HerkusMonte you do not want compromise. There is ongoing exchange of POV with IIIraute. You add to the exchange nothing. You like a particular version and do not want to hear nothing about facts - inconvenient for you. I hope the administrators will see it.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@IIIraute "the paternal family stems from the diocesan country Neiss in Silesia." That is right, the family was Polish and Silesian, specifically from Nysa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nysa,_Poland which was not Germany at all. It was part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown in the years 1342 - 1742. Warmia (you call it Ermland) after the Second Peace of Thorn (1466) was removed from the control of the Teutonic Knights and placed under the sovereignty of the Crown of Poland as part of the province of Royal Prussia, although with several privileges. So where is the German origin of Copernicus? Where is the one Germany to which his mother and father belonged? There was no single Germany at that time. Copernicus' father and probably his grandfather first lived in Krakow, and there is no doubt about the family's Polish origin. Some disagreement with the Polish King does not make Copernicus a German either — if there was any, it was not a bloody war like with the Teutonic Order, and Prussia did not exist until 1525.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ HerkusMonte: Please do not start accusing anybody of "anti-germanism" or something. That is your next line of defense — an offense, instead of argument. It is ridiculous, stop it. Your only argument is that there was a 3-year consensus, nothing else is important or worth mentioning. --70.28.16.8 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1. 2 @HerkusMonte: YES STOP THE EDIT WAR AT ONCE. LEAVE THE VERSION of Nihil novi 14:54, 2 April 2013 and FINALLY start arguing on the talk page instead of sending the opposite party to some unspecified Archives.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Who can say Copernicus was a German: 1. The father's family can be traced to a village in Silesia near Nysa . In the 14th century, members of the family began moving to various other Silesian cities, to the Polish capital, Kraków (Cracow, 1367) i.e. 14th century, and to Toruń (1400). The setlement in Koperniki was first mentioned in 1272 and in 10th to 14th centuries part of Kingdom of Poland. Only around the 14th to 15th century it was a part of Kingdom of Bohemia. Nicolaus was named after his father. The father, likely the son of Jan, came from the Kraków line of Kopernik's. 2. Nicolaus’ mother, Barbara Watzenrode, was the daughter of Lucas Watzenrode the Elder and his wife Katherine (née Modlibóg). The Modlibógs (literally, in Polish, "Pray to God") were a prominent Polish family who had been well known in Poland's history since 1271. Thus Barbara was at least from mother side Polish also. The Watzenrodes had come from the Świdnica region of Silesia and had settled in Toruń after 1360 (i.e. 14th century). Settlement called Swidnica was mentioned already in 1243. As a first time mentioned with town privileges in 3th September 1267. The land and setlement was part of Polish Kingdom from its the earliest history - 990 year. In 1392 after death of Agnieszka widow of Bolko II the Polish royal family Piast, Świdnica become part of Bohemia. Through the Watzenrodes' extensive family relationships by marriage, they were also related to the prominent Czapski, Działyński, Konopacki and Kościelecki Polish noble families. Copernicus was Polish from blood and emotional relations.--70.28.16.8 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Copernicus' grandmother was born "Modlibóg" first appeared by an anonymous editor in the 18th century and was used at the Polish side as part of Copernicus' nationality dispute. This claim, however, could never be supported.--walkee^talkee 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You claim " first appeared by an anonymous editor" does not seems to be real. There in article are 3 references, some of them quiet recent. Such expression: "This claim, however, could never be supported." is very much authoritative. What qualifies you to such "NEVER"--70.28.16.8 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DEAR Wikipedia EDITORS, ALTHOUGH there is/was discussion and many assumptions the facts are only WHAT counts. If Leonardo da Vinci (contemporary to Copernicus) is Italian thus Copernicus is Polish. Only German chauvinism is against the facts which were mentioned above. Until know non of the opponents Walkee, HerkusMonte, Berlin-George or IIIraute provided any reasonable arguments to stop introducing Polish nationality for Copernicus. It is still a time to discussion and mixing and switching existing mess is senseless and in fact offensive. --70.28.16.8 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Asserting he would be Polish or German is not Wikipedia's job. The role of Wikipedia is simply not to judge whether Copernicus was German, Polish, Prussian or European. Each of those proponents have good arguments for their point of view (respectively: Copernicus' mother tongue was German; he lived in a region under sovereignty of the Kingdom of Poland; Copernicus considered himself Prussian; Copernicus is of mixed German-Polish extraction and studied in Italy) and the dispute can be described in the article in a neutral fashion. If the Polish argument (Royal Prussian being loyal to the kingdom of Poland), the German argument (that his family was German and so was his mother tongue, which I strongly toned down to German-language cultural background) should also be present. Let's mend fences and not continue this pointless dispute on this talk page. --walkee^talkee 22:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First above all, considering himself as a Prussian, at Copernicus time means he was resident of Royal Prussia, which means nothing more than subject of Polish Crown. Using this term presently is misleading considering the Prussian (Balts), Royal Prussia, which was originality Ziemia Chelminska, and was part of Mazovia, and finally the name of aggressive post Teutonic secular state. It is offensive to name Copernicus Prussian, as he had nothing to do with the most often presently association the aggressive post Teutonic state name - somewhere it was already mentioned. Regarding the mother tong - German language was used by many, unnecessary Germans in Poland and his status can not be compared to anything more than presently use the German in Switzerland, for example. Simply in Poland, German was the language of merchants. Latin was an official legal and politic correspondence language. Polish language become used seriously in literature at the end of 15th century, and as the official legal language at the end of 16th century - at the end of Copernicus live. Watzenrode were living on Polish soil (Silesia) from at least 1360, intermarried with Polish families, thus what the importance of speaking German? Finally, Mr. Walkee: "cultural background" - what that means? How it is so much identical with speaking German? It does means without the supposed "German cultural background" nobody can do nothing in Poland? How you can assume what was Copernicus background - what suggest you it? Language you can see and read, but saying something about somebody character and culture after 500 years? How you can say about original Polish characters at that time, was they so different and inferior? Come on, say something what you think about Polish scientists, how much they have to have the "German cultural background" to do something? Do you think Polish have lower "cultural background"? Do not we are equal? :) Come on!--207.112.105.233 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever other name(s) 207.112.105.233 calls himself, he makes some good points.

As the late Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, used to say, "All politics is local." Naturally, Copernicus considered himself a citizen of the Royal Prussia region of Poland, much as Thomas Jefferson two centuries later would consider himself a Virginian — which did not make Jefferson any less an American. But today to call Copernicus a "Prussian" is misleading. Copernicus was not one of the original Balt Prussian inhabitants for whom the area was named, and who were wiped out by the Teutonic Knights — whom Copernicus' family and he himself would battle. Nor did Copernicus have anything to do with the later Prussia which became a byword for militarism.

Another point concerns Copernicus' knowledge of the German language. Many non-Germans today and in earlier periods have also known and used the German language, without considering themselves "Germans." Copernicus naturally used Latin when corresponding with educated people, including Poland's royal court; the first Pole who wrote exclusively in Polish, Mikołaj Rej, published his first work in 1543 — the year of Copernicus' death. Possibly, if Copernicus' German correspondents had also been fluent in Latin, he would have written them in Latin.

Finally, what exactly does it mean to say that Copernicus was "culturally German"? How can we know, at five centuries' remove, the nature of Copernicus' culture? Both sides of his family hailed from Silesia, which had belonged to Poland or Bohemia but not to a Germany that would (unlike Poland) not exist as a nation state for centuries. It begs the question to make assumptions about Copernicus' "cultural background," and it is hardly NPOV.

It is strange to omit, from the lead, key facts about the life and work of Copernicus — while making an amateurish, incomprehensible remark about his not possessing "degrees" in his fields of achievement, including astronomy, other than canon law. How many degrees did his contemporary, Leonardo da Vinci, have? Nihil novi (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

before Gresham

If you really insist on a source for the phrase "before Gresham" - which is pretty inane as it's a non-controversial fact - it's easy to find. For example [10].Volunteer Marek 20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That he formulated it "before Gresham" is correct and I agree with that. However, at that time was the very last word of the lead and it appeared to be a rather rough ending to it. Nihil novi most recently changed this to "and formulated Gresham's Law in the year (1519) of Thomas Gresham's birth." which does not sound so rough anymore. I believe this is somewhat better.--walkee^talkee 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for reviewing historical facts by Wikipedia Commission

Commission? no such thing here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see that there is no consensus going to be. It is time that the Highest Wikipedia Commission review the historical facts in above last Archives and close the pointless returning to reverts to so call long standing consensus.--Yemote (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Created on 10 April 2013 at 18:58. -- Come on, folks! Really? --IIIraute (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Gentlemen, in the pursuit of excellence in the field of NPOV, you may find that Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish Prussian. The result of similar actions on English-spoken Wikipedia is the definition of marriage as a legal contract between people called spouses . Best regards, --Robsuper (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My impression

My correction follows from the respect for rules of Wikipedia in creation of links as well as my good will to improve the quality of articles. I have unpleasant impression that this revert reflects the author's hostility under the guise of prior consensus. I greet all, --Robsuper (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Do not dismiss niggles, because perfection depends on them

New changes to the lead

Nihil Novi now plans to make controversial changes to the lead and began arguing about them here. To me it appears to be a strange place to do that so I am starting a discussion here before he starts another revert war. Currently, the lead was restored to its state before the self-acknowledged SPA User:Astronomer28 began campaigning for Copernicus being declared as Polish. The lead should be neutral in respect to the nationality dispute, so I believe we have to decide on one of the following options:

• no arguments of the nationality dispute should be presented
• the strongest argument of each position should be presented
• an equal number should be presented

Nihil Novi rewrote parts of the lead, letting the strongest argument used by the Polish proponents be present there (that the province where the astronomer lived was incorporated in the Polish crown with certain powers of self-government). I added the strongest German argument (that his mother tongue was German and so was his family, but even toned it down "German cultural background") for balance, resulting in this lead version). Nihil Novi now intends to insert two further Polish arguments of the dispute in the lead and defends the version allegedly because of a better language, like he defended the biased changes to the nationality because of shortness. If there are problems with the language, Nihil novi can point them out and improve the language only, without more biased language to "Polonize" the astronomer, eulogize with emotional language (f.ex. "watershed in the history of science") and remove a citation request. --walkee^talkee 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an entire section on nationality, I don't see any reason to change the lead on this account. Personally I'm partial to my own summary that "German and Polish scholars have both claimed Copernicus as their own" at top of the nationality section as these appear to be the parties who have cared most over time. As I've indicated earlier sources seem to favor German while modern ones seem to favor Polish, for those keeping score. The section itself could use some copyediting to be less he said/she said. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What does a reader expect from the lead to an article on Copernicus? Compare the current "Copernicus" lead [11] with that for his contemporary and fellow Renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci [12]. What strikes you? The "Leonardo da Vinci" lead leaves you with a sense of the man, his times, and his attainments in science and art, even while pointing out that—since Leonardo did not publish his scientific and technological discoveries—they "had no direct influence on later science". The Copernicus lead, by contrast, is the civilian equivalent of "name, rank and serial number"; its purpose seems not to familiarize the reader with the man and his work, but rather to obscure the facts of his life; it leaves you with no sense of the man or his times, and precious little concerning his contributions to science and learning, which, much more fundamentally than Leonardo's, influenced the development of science: indeed, the "Copernican Revolution" became fundamental to the "Scientific Revolution".

By all means, let us eschew speculation in the lead about Copernicus' "cultural background". Let us stick to pertinent facts: his dates and places of birth and death; the times and sociopolitical circumstances in which he lived and participated; his education, which prepared him for his work in multiple fields; the importance of his principal scientific achievements; his continuing legacy to the world. Whether Pole, German, European or simply human, Copernicus deserves much better than the constricted treatment that he has been accorded in his lead on the pages of the world's greatest encyclopedia.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In the first paragraph you argue that the lead is too much sticking to the pertinent facts and does not leave a sense of the man and his background.

In the second paragraph you argue that the lead should only be sticking to pertinent facts: that Copernicus' German cultural background should not be present there. Instead, only his place of birth and death (which you certainly do not want to leave with the name of the cities, but certainly extend to "of Poland", as you have done in the past).

You have been completely ignoring the points I raised above about putting arguments of the nationality dispute in the lead, making it look like the dispute wouldn't matter a bit to you. However, I have this feeling that as soon as the protection is lifted, edit-warring and further attempts to nationalize Copernicus continue.--walkee^talkee 13:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded with Copernicus life and achievements. I see no problem with that assertion. Now, may I suggest that those interested in rewriting the lead post both the current/stable and any new versions here, highlighting changes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede should not be expanded. Larkusix (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not? And what about the lead? Nihil novi (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the above clear opposition above, Nihil novi ignored it and pushes a new suprise!-rewrite of the lead with the following changes/problems:

• Removal of language links.
• Removal of Polish audio link.
• Removal of no-nationality-assertion comment.
• Pushing up a paragraph about Royal Prussia's relation to Poland from the third to the second paragraph because that's obviously more important to the author than Copernicus's book. "Kraków" is especially emphasized as his university although he didn't graduate there. Bill Gates does not have "Harvard" in the lede and has "(dropped out)" in the info box.
• Turning the paragraph about his book into some wet imagery with "watershed" and "seminal". Both extraordinary claims to which the words refer are unsupported by the rest of the article and replace a neutral description.
• "One of the great polymaths". Peacock POV.
• "quadrilingual" is listed unecessarily to the noun polyglot but five languages are named. That's a failure in mathematics (quadri = 4) and because it's unknown how many languages Copernicus spoke we can leave it as polyglot.
• It's claimed again that he was an artist, "artist", supported by no secondary source making the claim. The footnote is original research and suggest that because Copernicus had one self-portrait, he was a visual artist. Would the fact that he cooked himself a good meal make him a cook too? What about if he cooked himself meals regularly? No? We don't publish original research on Wikipedia anyway.
• Here's a fun question for you. What makes you think the self-portrait was the one alleged by Britannica? Owen Gingerich mentions a self-portrait. He refers to a work by Tobias Stimmer and cites Metze. Look at page 166 here. Britannica's alleged self-portrait looks nothing like it.
• Why do you emphasize that Copernicus had a version of Gresham's law in the year of Gresham's birth? It's as if to emphasize that Copernicus was more awesome than Gresham with an added touch of mysticism. Also, why do we mention that it came before Gresham's version? There's no indication that Gresham knew of Copernicus's version that did not became famous then and there's a much earlier version by Nicole Oresme.

Despite two recent edit protections, Nihil novi and Volunteer Marek think that Wikipedians should edit war to get new versions realized. This is contradicted by WP:CAUTIOUS. It states: "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first." Because both users have failed to explain within several days, this is also a particlarly bad case of WP:UNRESPONSIVE. It states: " When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it." Having failed to gain consensus for previous changes to the lede, according to WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".--walkee^talkee 14:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Walkee, concerning the "Copernicus" article lead

• I do not object to inclusion of language links, Polish audio link, or no-nationality-assertion comment.

• It is customary, early in an article lead, to place a biographee in his historic location, rather than leave him floating somewhere in space. This is particularly helpful if no "nationality" is to be attributed.

• It is not true that, in my proposed version of the lead ([13]), "Kraków is especially emphasized as his university although he didn't graduate there." This university is simply mentioned as the first of 4 that he attended. His attendance there, whether or not he obtained a degree, was important to his subsequent intellectual development, as amply discussed in this article and summarized in the following paragraph:

Copernicus' four years at Kraków played an important role in the development of his critical faculties and initiated his analysis of the logical contradictions in the two most popular systems of astronomy—Aristotle's theory of homocentric spheres, and Ptolemy's mechanism of eccentrics and epicycles—the surmounting and discarding of which constituted the first step toward the creation of Copernicus' own doctrine of the structure of the universe. [Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, "Kopernik, Mikołaj", Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. XIV, p. 5.]

• Your description, as "wet imagery", of the words "watershed" ("a critical point marking a change in course or development") and "seminal" ("highly influential, especially in some original way, and providing a basis for future development or research") betrays your limited grasp of the English language. Please look up these words on Wiktionary. Neither adjective is "extraordinary" in application to Copernicus' achievement, as made clear in Wikipedia's "Scientific revolution" article:

The scientific revolution was the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, and chemistry transformed views of society and nature.... [T]he publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human body) is often cited as marking the beginning of the scientific revolution.

• If anyone in Copernicus' age can be described as a great polymath, he surely can be. Please see his entry in "List of people who have been called a polymath".

• We can call Copernicus a "polyglot", with a mention of the languages he knew.

• Copernicus painted a self-portrait which Polish Police found useful as a representation of its subject: "the Polish Police Central Forensic Laboratory used the skull to reconstruct a face that closely resembled the features—including a broken nose and a scar above the left eye—on a Copernicus self-portrait." ("Copernicus' grave found in Polish church", USA Today, 3 November 2005.) How many art works must an individual produce to qualify as an artist? Novelists Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee each wrote only one novel (Gone with the Wind; To Kill a Mockingbird). Does this disqualify them as artists? We can drop the reference to the Jagiellonian University self-portrait copy and rely on published accounts of the Polish Police's forensics.

• Scholars have found it worth noting Copernicus' iteration of what was indeed described before Copernicus and has since become known as "Gresham's Law". Multiple discovery is common in the sciences and arts. That does not take away from Copernicus' achievement. Stating that he described this law the year that Gresham was born, simply puts the matter in chronological perspective.

• The "Copernicus" lead has been the work of many hands, and "your" version carries no more legitimacy than "mine".

Nihil novi (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not object to the inclusion of the language links, Polish audio link or no-nationality section comment, then why did you explicitly choose to delete it?

So the Polish police noted that on the self portrait he revealed a broken nose and scar that matches the skull. That opens other questions about Copernicus but doesn't suggest he was an artist. I maintain my opinion that calling someone a "visual artist" because he once painted a self-portrait is not only primary research but also an unacceptable conclusion.

The lead already called him a "polyglot", but now trying to add exactly the languages he spoke and their degree is just speculation and less suitable for the lead.

It may be customary to place a biographee in his historic location, but that was already done, and is in the infobox and first part of the main text too. You, however, made a discussion about Royal Prussia come before mentioning his book and its influence.

Then you tell me to look up the word "seminal" in the dictionary like I was ignorant and you the expert. I know the other meanings of seminal and watershed, thank you, but before we hotly debate the imagery of Copernicus's seminal watershed in the history of science, let's agree that it's puffery, that it actually took a long time before his theories became accepted [14] and that instead we can note down what Copernicus influenced in detail.

"The "Copernicus" lead has been the work of many hands, and "your" version carries no more legitimacy than "mine"."

This has never been "my version". You only tried to rewrite the lead. If you like to make any further additions, they should be discussed before (WP:CAUTIOUS). By the way, the absence of Rheticus in the lead is strange even though he played a crucial role [15] for Copernicus and his life's work...--walkee^talkee 18:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If anything, the awkward sentence about being born and dying in Royal Prussia that crept into the lede lately should be left out or be rewritten less awkwardly. Larkusix (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Copernicus polyglotism, you always have to ask yourself, is it noteworthy? I mean, is speaking four laguages noteworthy enough to get a mention in the lede, really? Millions of people can do that. Larkusix (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my comments above. If you want to add Rheticus to the lead, go for it! Copernicus, whether he be German, Polish or Inuit, deserves a more substantial lead than he has been given. Nihil novi (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, the current lead is too short. Please, somebody, expand it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus autoportrait - signed "N Copernic"?

I have removed the following claim: "He signed a self-portrait, a copy of which is now at Jagiellonian University, "N Copernic"." It was attributed to non-free Britannica article at [ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus]. First, we should avoid citing other encyclopedias if possible. Second, I cannot find this claim in any other sources I checked (including Google Books search in English and Polish). Until a more reliable source is presented, I am inlined to treat this claim as a typo, either by editor reproducing this claim, or by Britannica. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy or guideline deprecates citing encyclopedias as reliable sources. Overall, Encyclopædia Britannica is in the highest tier of reliability.—Finell 17:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. See WP:TERTIARY. Now, I am not saying Britannica is not reliable, I am saying it is not as good as most other secondary sources. And anyway, as I said, if a claim such as variant of a name cannot be verified using any secondary source, it' a safe bet it's an error in the tertiary one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the claim is not even supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica article cited. The only thing that article says about any alleged self-portrait is "Copernicus later painted a self-portrait". It says nothing whatever about that portrait's being signed "N Copernic" or its being now at Jagiellonian University.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reproduction in zoom from Britannica article. There is an original part of the 17th century work i.e. label saying N COPERNIC under the portrait. Scientifically it is a copy of 16th century self-portrait. Under this zoom is the adequate Britannica comment. My advice is if you want know more about this historical item you should contact directly the Museum of Jagielonian University.--74.213.188.138 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But that still makes the claim a case of WP:SYNTHESIS.Volunteer Marek 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The reproduction in question was not visible in the page of the Britannica article displayed on my computer screen, and even after reading your comment I had some trouble working out where it was. However, this image still doesn't support the claim that "He signed a self-portrait ... N. Copernic". The words "N. Copernic" appearing at the bottom of that painting look more like a title than a signature to me, and there's nothing in the image or caption to indicate whether those words appeared on both this 17th-century copy and the original supposed self-portrait, or only on the former. In fact, since the year of Copernicus's death is included to the right of this supposed "signature", that would tend to indicate to me that it was probably a title added by the 17-th century copyist.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly if we want be fully correct we should look to the original sources i.e. portrait and Jagielonian University custody. It is worth something if we want prove the corect name of his - written in Latin would be Copernic not Copernicus. It is worth to see on the handwritten signature, already included in article. See also the cover page of "De revolutionibus" the name is Copernici.--74.213.188.138 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be OR to use the portrait in text to draw any conclusions, particularly in light of David's point it can be a title. There are some sources discussing the portrait, through none as far as I've seen have even as so far as mentioned this signature in this rendering. The only way I can see this being included in the article is in the form of image which would let the readers draw his or her own conclusions, as the origin and purpose of the "N Copernic" text cannot at this point be verified by reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there really any significant scholarly dispute about the correct latinised form of Copernicus's name? It appears to me to be universally accepted that it is "Nicolaus Copernicus" in the nominative case. I have always assumed—and stand to be corrected if I am mistaken—that this would be inflected as a standard 2nd declension noun. Thus, the form "Nicolai Copernici" which appears in the title of De Revolutionibus would be the genitive. A literal English translation of the title would be "Six books of the Torunian Nicholas Copernicus on the revolutions of the heavenly orbs". I can't see any evidence there that the correct latinised form of his surname would be "Copernic".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, which is another reason I found this signature problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should 19th century John Owen's claim matter?

Our article states:

Another Protestant theologian who took issue with Copernicus was John Owen who declared that "the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world' was 'built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture." This is referenced to Exercitations concerning the Name, Original, Nature, Use, and Continuance of a Day of Sacred Rest, Exercitation II = An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Exercitation XXXVI, section 16 (Works, London, 1850–1855; re-issued, Edinburgh, 1862, XIX, 310). Now, putting aside ref formatting, my problem here is: why should we care that in 19th century somebody disagreed with Copernicus, if no other reliable sources are cited to show his onion matters? In other words, unless someone cares enough to add a more modern cite stating that Owen's opinion was important, I am inclined to remove this as trivia. (Please don't disagree with me telling me how important this claim is; add a cite instead). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on John Owen, he lived in the 17th century, not the 19th. The 19th-century dates given for the cited reference are (presumably) just the dates when they were published.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Finally I've decided to take a closer look at this mess. I'll start with references. I am going to be removing all low quality and broken references, converting the rest into cite templates, and doing what I can to make them look better. I'd appreciate help - this cleanup can by done by anyone familiar with the ref system, and going through ~115 refs by myself will take a while. Also, we need to split references from notes. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier. There was no need to create a new "Notes" section. The section originally labelled "Notes", and which you have now relabelled "References" was a notes section, although it did contain a large number of full references which were out of place. The purpose of the section originally labelled "References", and which you have now relabelled "Bibliography" was to hold references cited in the article or in the notes. The simplest way to clean up the referencing would have been simply to move the bibliographic details of the references appearing in the original "Notes" section into the original "References" (now "Bibliography") section, and replace them with a harvard citation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify some of these comments. My assertions about what the purposes of the sections originally labelled "Notes" and "References" were are my perceptions of the only sensible way of interpreting what their purpose should have been given the states they were in when I started editing the article. It is obvious from the way these sections have developed that not all other editors have had a similar perception. When adding a citation or footnote to the article, my practice has consistently been to put the full bibliographic details of any reference cited in the section originally labelled "References", and a Havard citation, plus qualifying endnotes (if any) in the section originally labelled "Notes". This follows one of the stock standard conventions used for citations and references in scholarly works on history, and seemed to me to be the most convenient of the standard conventions to follow, given the actual state of these sections when I began editing.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic refs - please help

Here's I'll list refs which I find problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Adrian Krzyzanowski; John Sniadecki (1844). "Copernicus and His Native Land". The Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review. Smith, Elder & Co.: 367. Retrieved 31 May 2013.. Reason: 19th century source. I'll see if I can find refs to replace it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Found better refs, removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Calendar of the Church Year according to the Episcopal Church". Satucket.com. 2010-06-12. Retrieved 2012-08-17. - how reliable is satucket.com? Can we find a better ref for its claim: "Copernicus is honored, together with Johannes Kepler, in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA), with a feast day on 23 May." ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• I. Bernard Cohen (1985). Revolution in Science. Harvard College Press. needs page numbers. I'd appreciate it if sb could spent some detective wiki time, figure out who added the ref, and ping them to add page numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tracked down the page number by using Amazon's "search inside" feature for the book. Both citations are to the same page, whose number I have now added to the citation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Danielson, Dennis Richard (2006). The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution. New York: Walker & Company. ISBN 0-8027-1530-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) is another ref missing page numbers (used three times). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Here's another problem, an annoying compound ref: Gingerich [[#Reference-Gingerich-2004|(2004)]]}, DeMarco [[#Reference-DeMarco-2004|(2004)]] [http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/04/13/book_quest_took_him_around_the_globe]</ref> - two books with no page numbers and an unformated external link Actually all that was needed here was the external link; the book references were spurious "further reading" (bad referencing practice). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. There was only one book being cited, and it was the actual book specifically mentioned in the text of the article where the citation appeared—namely, Owen Gingerich's The Book Nobody Read. No page number is necessary in this case, since the purpose of the citation is simply to provide the reader with the full bibliographic details of the book mentioned in case they want to consult it. This is an absolutely standard scholarly practice. Also, the section of the article originally titled "References", and which you have now retitled "Bibliography" is not a "further reading" section. It is (or at least was) a section for listing all the references cited in the article, and should not contain any that are not so cited. If you look at the Harvard citations in the section which was originally titled "Notes", and which you have now (misleadingly) titled "References", you will find that each of those citations is to a reference listed in the Bibliography section, and, in many cases, pointed to by a link in the citation, either under the author's name or year given in the citation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The book is not being cited, its review is. We cannot cite a review for claims made by a book. If the review says the book is rubbish, this is not a claim made by the book. Sure, in many other examples a review repeats what a book says - but then cite the book. Otherwise, cite a review. There's never a good case where you'd cite a book whereas in fact you are relying on a review. This is most certainly not a good scholarly practice.

I am not sure what is the point you raise about section titles. I've not retitled biography to further reading, nor am I arguing it should be done, so all I am seeing is a straw man argument. Since I am sure it was not your intention, I'd ask you to rewrite or restate your point. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Springer Science & Business Media., used once, is missing a page number --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Rivka Feldhay (1995). Galileo and the Church. Cambridge University Press. yet another book without page citation --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Robert S. Westman (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. - final ref missing page number at this moment; I am done with this ref review pass --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Schweidnitz vs Świdnica

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

Go for it.Volunteer Marek 17:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The usage of German and Polish variants of placenames is determined in the wellknown Gdansk vote (see Talk:Gdansk). Volunteer Marek is a staunch defender of that policy, especially regarding the binding character of the settled dates. A slight hint would have been adequate. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Go for it"? ... I think you know better - don't you Marek?? Well, just the usual suspects. Robsuper, have a look at the top of this talk-page ↑↑ [16], thanks!--IIIraute (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Extensive text, thanks a lot for the tip. My proposal seems to be consistent with these findings. --Robsuper (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

One vote of support and lack of objections, after more than two months, so I can assume my proposal was accepted. Thank you. --Robsuper (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To: editors: Wester and William M. Connolley

blocked sockism

Could you explain why you reverted edit of user Oliszydlowski on article -Copernicus-? Please read the talk page and the context of the article. Although Copernicu’s mother had German family name and Copernicus was speaking German beside Polish and Latin, it has no meaning. It is because the Watzenrode family was in Polish territories more than 100 years earlier, were intermarried with Polish families, the family was loyal subjects to Polish Royalty and Polish nation interests. Copernicu’s mother was at least half Polish, her mother was from well known Polish family Modlibog. German language was commonly used as trade language in Polish cities at that time since the bourgeoisie were commonly recruited from German countries by Polish Kings and Polish Dukes. Speaking German does not mean to be a member of German nation even presently. The German language is the main and/or official Language in Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Lichtenstein and Luxemburg, so speaking German does not mean to be a German. Copernicus was born in Poland, educated in Poland and later in Italy not in any of the many German speaking kingdoms or duchies of that time. He was also loyal citizen of Poland in the wars against (German) Teutonic Order. Thus it is the German nationalist markup and German done edits war which set the inappropriate form of the article.--Huronton (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC) You need to start by reading at least some of the vast amounts of pre-existing discussion on this. Try starting with the section just above, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Yes I read all of them and more. I make an effort to check, in first place, the value of all claims. Let me know what is incorrect in the article, where come from my news to springs. Let me know you arguments, why you say Copernicus is not Polish. As you can read German scientist do not say Copernicus is German -> see the last section of the article -Commemoration - Copernicium- . Well, at least some of the modern recognized German scientists say so. Let me know if any real German modern scientist argue that Copernicus is German. Please do not support yourself by some of old staff, the German imperialists and after especially the Germans Nazis make a lot of awful big lies and crimes around many Polish cultural achievements and scientists. The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia are just the continuations of the old imperialistic/nationalistic politic by the Nazi offsprings.--Huronton (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia are just the continuations of the old imperialistic/nationalistic politic by the Nazi offsprings - say no more guv, say no more. Indeed, if I were you, I'd retract that immeadiately. Nothing will go right for you if you don't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC) GUV? - "if I were you, I'd retract that immeadiately. Nothing will go right for you if you don't" That is very politle :) And, well show you personality. It goes to board of Administrators and Jimmy Wales himself. I think you beleave you very powerfull, big and wise man... The Rouge admin. I think is the result of such thinking. Best regards :)--Huronton (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) So far Huronton you have given a lot of opinion with little supporting fact and committed two personal attacks on another editor (one here one on a talk page). I too suggest you think through your actions, retract the personal attacks, disengage and return with some more substantial references and a less accusatory approach. --BozMo talk 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC) TO: BozMo --- Would you point where the personal attack is. Did I name anybody personally Nazi offspring? NO! I expressed my personal opinion about the edit war sources – this is different thing. Secondly, the personal attack calling me 'guv' and attempting to frighten me... O! Come on! Are you rely have a sense of what is going on?--Huronton (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC) TO: BozMo --- Regarding opinion and facts. All what I wrote about Copernicus family etc. is in current version of the article. I am afraid people go to set editions without reading even the text of the article.--Huronton (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Just to sort out a few misconceptions: "Guv" is short for governor and is a polite term of casual respect not remotely a personal attack. However making comments about what people believe themselves to be [17] is clearly personal, attacking and not relevant to encyclopaedia content. I suggest language like "The present dirty attacks on Polish culture on Wikipedia " is also not constructive. --BozMo talk 08:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't waste your time. This is Serafin (talk · contribs) back with another sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC) ...and the sockpuppet is blocked. Would it be appropriate to collapse this section?Unfriend13 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Priest and Canon

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

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

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

The first sentence should be as such:

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

This has come up several times before (here, for example). To the best of my knowledge Edward Rosen's conclusion that Copernicus was not a priest is still accepted by contemporary historians of science as firmly established, and there is no current scholarly controversy over the issue. Even if there were, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view would preclude it from stating as a fact that Copernicus was a priest. Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina is a primary source, and cannot be regarded as a reliable source for the supposedly historical facts which it relates. Indeed, it has been shown (again by Edward Rosen) that this letter makes several other erroneous historical assertions besides the one that Copernicus was a priest.

I agree that the lead should probably say somewhere that Copernicus remained a canon in the Catholic church of Frombork throughout most of his working life.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David, I didn't have access to Rosen's earlier paper which I've now added to the article so I was more cautious in stating it. Chris55 (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

significance of first name

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

RfC: rewrite of the nationality section

This article has been hounded by nationalist disputes for many years with probably Megabytes of pure discussion on the talk page. These wars slowly decreased and for three years the article was almost free of these petty wars and a version that was accepted by both sides became stable. In February however, the account User:Astronomer28 wrote a new version of the nationality section and seeks to establish his new version with reverting, arguing that it was shorter. I believe that his version seeks to misrepresent the entire dispute, removes reliable sources and is intentionally biased. He claimed that only his version would be NPOV [18] "because the NPOV is that he was Polish" [19]. The Copernicus article was a good article nominee with a more elaborate nationality section. In my opinion the previous version of the section should continue to be used or be modified without attempts to advance a POV. --walkee^talkee 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Even though I am not involved in this dispute at all, I would obviously support the previous version per Walkee. The core fundamental policy we must keep in mind is WP:NPOV. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think the longer version is preferable, although it can use expansion from other sources. I plan on adding refs from Polski Słownik Biograficzny in a near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• [Sock IP of User:Serafin removed.] – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• support previous version per Walkee. Only established editor opinions should be taken into account - no socks, no IP's. User:Astronomer28s' version isn't relevant, as the editor is topic banned → [20]. --IIIraute (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• [Sock IP of User:Mieszko 8 removed.] --walkee^talkee 19:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Less is definitely not more. I would be interested to see what additional refs can be added. All this said, there are certainly plenty of modern sources indicating Copernicus worked with German astronomers, but, really, I don't see any significant "controversy" regarding his being Polish, checking 21st century sources for Copernicus and "German astronomer" versus "Polish astronomer." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.S. Running ngrams for "German astronomer Copernicus,Polish astronomer Copernicus", no results for German. Of course this is looking for exact matches of the phrase, but one would have expected some since "German" seems more popular in 19th century sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• The edit says "Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich." The source (p. 60) actually says, "Following the customary tustle over the ethnic identity of Copernicus [at the VIIth International Historical Congress in Warsaw August 1933]."[21] First, it is inflammatory to associate what was a normal position for German scholars from Imperial times with nazi Germany. Secondly, they were discussing ethnicity, not nationality. TFD (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

An apt summary of Burleigh (and just with ref, name not needed inline) and first sentence for the section might simply be "German and Polish scholars have both claimed Copernicus as their own." In fairness regarding the time of Third Reich content, there were a lot of German uber alles claims at the time. You're synthesizing that there is a synthesis creating some accusatory continuum of Nazism going back to Imperial Germany. That's not advancing the conversation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I support the previous version per walkee. Larkusix (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• My support goes to the old (longer, walkee) version. The debate and the hassle started as early as 1726 when Papadopoli wrongly (for whatever reason) claimed that Copernicus joined the Polish natio in Padua - a claim that impressed 150 years of scholars with assigning him Polish roots until the "mistake" was cleared around 1880, when it became clear that Padua had no Polish natio and in Bologna he had joined the German natio despite the existence of a Polish one there. I do not want to reopen the debate, apart from stating that a "majority view" is neither a necessary nor sufficient argument for any truth, especially when we look back at 150 years of wrong assumptions to start with. The new version however implies (subtly, but still) that the debate is rooted in the fascist ideology, which it is clearly not. ASchudak (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is a joke because polish was not a language witch was very popular in this time that means even when the mother language would have been polish he would have prefered to speak German ore Latin. Sorry my polish friends but this discussion is a running joke. Johann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.193.161 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin of Rheticus

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

He was a mathematician in Wittenberg at that time, so it is not incorrect. Whether it is the best way to describe him I do not know. (We could start an edit war whether he was a German or an Austrian mathematician to add some more lameness) to this talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 12:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Copernicus was Polish beyond all doubt

How come people say that Copernicus was German, and omitting Poland? Copernicus was Polish! His first language (mother tongue) was Polish, nevertheless he spoke German, Italian, Latin and Greek too. As far as I remember, there was a large wave of protests and controversy in Poland after the German media announced that Copernicus was a German astronomer, and they didn't mention Poland in one word. Copernicus's family tree was comprised of 80% Polish people (with pure-Polish or Germanised-Polish last names) and barely 20% Germans/Prussians as his distant relatives. "Copernicus" is a Latin name by which you know a person, whose real last name was "Kopernik". Germans transliterated it into "Kopernikus", "Koppernigk" and "Kopperlingk" - a last name which does not exist nowhere but this particular case. The last name "Kopernik" however, exists in Poland till nowadays - there are families with this surname and it's not so extremely rare, it's even described there: http://lastnames.myheritage.pl/last-name/Kopernik This is why I think that Copernicus's REAL name "Kopernik" should be in the brackets on the first place, before the German transliteration. What do you people think about it? Tell me, why here, on the English-version of Wikipedia, people are so afraid to put the word "Polish" as an adjective describing Kopernik? Why is it so "taboo", and why such a confusion about these obvious facts? BTW - Happy 541-st birthday to Mr Mikołaj Kopernik! Yatzhek (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no conclusive fact whether he was Polish or German. Firstly, due to the place he was born and the year. Would you be able to provide a source that his first language (mother tongue) was Polish?

On the article at the moment:

"There survive a few documents written by Copernicus in German. The German philosophy professor Martin Carrier mentions this as a reason to consider Copernicus’ native language to have been German. Other arguments for German being Copernicus' native tongue are that he was born in a predominantly German-speaking city and that, while studying canon law at Bologna in 1496, he signed into the German natio (Natio Germanorum)—a student organization which, according to its 1497 by-laws, was open to students of all kingdoms and states whose mother-tongue ("Muttersprache") was German."

On the English Wikipedia people are not afraid of putting the description of him as Polish, this has already been explained why its not used. The decision can be found Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#name_listing (just above this), feel free to have your input.--Windows66 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

? huh. The name listing discusses the order in which the Polish and German variants of his name are spelled, not whether he should be described as Polish. NE Ent 14:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't on about the description of his nationality as Polish but rather the users' view on how his name should appear.--Windows66 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Name listing

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

One side in the 9 year old edit war was a tiny bit more persistent than the other? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the German name? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

His "German name" is the name most commonly used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, no. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Volunteer Marek. WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, not the order in which variant spellings are included in the lede, and it specifies "English-language reliable sources". There is no policy-based or guideline-based reason for the German variant to come before the Polish one. Risker (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, yes. And even if COMMONNAME is intended for article titles, the same reasoning applies, and is consistent with WP:NEUTRALITY. Because English-speaking readers are most likely to recognize the "German name." Similarly we refer to Confucius, which is his latinized name, rather than Kong Fuzi. TFD (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, no. The guideline specifically does not give any guidance on that. The section that applies is treatment of alternative names. Risker (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Nicolaus Copernicus" is the common name used in reliable sources for English readers. Every description I've read, including my current physics text describes him as Polish, so the Polish name would seem most logic to list after the English one. NE Ent 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

References

What about using the name "Nicolas Copernicus" which is what he was called until recent decades? It is latinized rather than German. TFD (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To avoid another ridiculous discussion about his "real" name, the different variants should be listed in alphabetical order. The alphabet is not influenced by any kind of nationalism and thus a way to sort the names neutrally. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetically Mikołaj Kopernik comes before Nikolaus Kopernikus. NE Ent 11:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And German before Polish.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. So "alphabetical," rather than being neutral, is arbitrary, and can just as easily be used to support one's preferred version by picking when the name or language should be "alphabetical." So, from the "nationalist" standpoint of a English reader, given NC is generally known as a "Polish astronomer," the logical secondary name would be the Polish one. NE Ent 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetically, Copernicus comes before Kopernik, at least in the Latin alphabet, which is used in the English Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, what does that have to do with anything? No one's saying that we should retitle the article to Mikołaj Kopernik.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Germany revised spellings c. 1900 so that "c" became "k", Nikolaus Kopernikus would appear to be the modern German spelling. Since it is unlikely that anyone would have spelled his name that way, do we need to include it? TFD (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

treatment of alternative names does list "historical names" as something that can be included, so I'm fine with it either way. NE Ent 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

His name at birth was Kopernik, which he "latinized" to Copernicus, which is how he is generally known. Around 1900, Germans started spelling his name "Kopernikus", in line with their new spelling rules. Why do we have to mention the new German spelling? And why say Kopernik was his name in Polish. It was his actual original name. The article on Władysław Sikorski for example does not have the Polish spelling of his name in brackets. TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the article, his birth name was written "Niclas Koppernigk". I do not actually see a good argument to include the modern Polish or German spellings of his name. —Kusma (t·c) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's how his name was recorded, but it's not how it's spelled today. You'd be hard pressed to find many historical figures whose names are currently spelled as they were when they were alive. We follow modern usage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We use the modern usage in among English-speakers. TFD (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Copernican Telescope

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that all of Copernicus' astronomical observations were done without the benefit of a telescope - it hadn't been invented yet. 2607:F0B0:D:4C38:6091:AD92:290C:9D1 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true, 2607, but a statement of the obvious. Copernicus made very few observations, as he said. Some of these involved big errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.252.194 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"obvious"? to who? would you expect that only professional astronomers and telescope makers will read this Wikipedia article?...try this - ask a random sample of, say, a few hundred people when the telescope was invented then get back to us with the numbers of correct, or near-correct, answers... tip to save you a little time and effort: the number will be a close approximation to zero... similar result if you were to ask them to describe Copernicus' observational techniques... in truth, you'd likely have trouble just finding people who had any idea at all who Copernicus was, or why we remember him... 2607:F0B0:9:A005:6091:AD92:290C:9D1 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Wouldn't hurt to mention that Copernicus had no telescope, and what his observational techniques consisted in. Nihil novi (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Something like Copernicus conducted astronomical observations in 1513–16 presumably from his external curia; and in 1522–43, from an unidentified "small tower" (turricula), using primitive instruments modeled on ancient ones—the quadrant, triquetrum, armillary sphere. At Frombork Copernicus conducted over half of his more than 60 registered astronomical observations perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds very good, especially if references are provided for these facts! Nihil novi (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Its a quote from the article :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion

I found the article informative. One thing to be careful about is giving undue weight to a minority position (unfortunately a common occurrence in journalism). In the segment on nationality, if most sources ascribe Copernicus a Pole then dissenting statements should not lead nor take up the majority of its space. It's a very good article overall. Thanks. Lafanciulla (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Copernicus was also a Catholic priest. He became a canon of the cathedral chapter of Frombork through his uncle, and he served the church of Warmia as a medical advisor.117.213.7.93 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Current scholarly opinion seems to be that Copernicus was never ordained, and was therefore not a priest. There is no doubt about his being a canon, but that office did not require him to be a priest. The claim that he was has been raised and rebutted several times before on this talk page, most recently here.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Name

"The surname likely had something to do with the local Silesian copper-mining industry,[27] though some scholars assert that it may have been inspired by the dill plant (in Polish, "koperek" or "kopernik") that grows wild in Silesia.[34]"

The reference [27] for assertion that Kopernik's name had something to do with the copper mining industry, is not a linguistic dissertation of scientific value, but a journalistic relation by Stefan Melkowski of a discussion panel held at Mikołaj Kopernik University in Toruń, on a subject of ethnic and national affiliations of Copernicus. The passage linking the name Kopernik to the copper industry correctly points out the common Slavic or Polish suffix of the name “-nik”, denoting an agent noun, like in beatnik, or sputnik, proving the name is Slavic: Polish, or Silesian in origin. However statement that adding the suffix to the root “kopr” denotes a person dealing with copper artifacts, may well be a joke, appropriate for such an article. “Kopr” is Czech for “dill”, as is “koper” in Polish. Similarity of the medieval spelling of the name Kopernik (with double “p”) with “copper” does not prove the name has originated from the copper metal. English has not been spoken in medieval Silesia and Poland. The Polish for copper is “miedź”, while in Czech it is “měď”. The German name for copper is “Kupfer”, with variations like “kuper”, “kupfar”, “kuffar”, “kupar”, “kuppar”, not quite similar to Kopernik . The German Kupfer originates from Latin cuprum, and is a term unlikely used by the early medieval Silingi, the supposedly Germanic tribe that inhabited Silesia in antiquity. The Gothic (East Germanic early medieval language) name for copper alloys may have been “aiz”. While German settlers started to arrive in Poland, including Silesia, since the thirteenth century, along with founding new and existing towns on the Magdeburg Law by the Polish Piast princes, the Silesian village Kopernik, or Koperniki, near the town of Nysa, Neisse in German, the likely source of Kopernik family name, according to the Nuremberg Chronicle has still been inhabited by a Polish population at the time of issue of the Chronicle in 1493, when Nicolaus Copernicus was 20 years old. It states about the countryside surrounding Nysa: “plebs rustica polonici ydeomatis...” In approximate translation:“Polish plebeian villagers all around (Nysa)”. Today, according to a Polish ancestry webpage Moikrewni.pl, there are 130 persons living in Poland, bearing the last name Kopernik. Its German counterpart, Verwandt.de reports 22 phone book entries with that name. The name spelled Koppernigk is absent there. The Polish Moikrewni.pl webpage also reports numerous similar names, like Kopernok (mostly in Silesia), Kopernicki, etc. As far as the meaning of the Kopernik village name, it could have been derived from the name for dill, or one could also speculate that it has something to do with the Silesian dialect verb „kopyrtnąć”, “kopertnąć”, meaning to jump, to go fetch something, to fall down, to trip, to die suddenly, possibly from no longer used “kopyra” or “kopera”, meaning a hare, and similar to also archaic Polish expression :”sunąć w koperczaki” – to move in a lively, dance like fashion, meaning “to pay court to a lady”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc966 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Influences

ClueBot decided that this edit by @White373737:, which added Martianus Capella to the infobox as an influence, was possible vandalism. I don't get it. Sure, I don't know the topic but it appears, on the face of it, to be at least just a good faith edit even if it is wrong. Or is there some horrendous history here which means that the insertion is indeed disruptive? For now, I am AGFing and restoring it. Please feel free to put me right on this ... thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It was probably just reacting to the string “anus“. (I’ve noticed a couple of false positives from it lately.)—Odysseus1479 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Blimey - I hadn't even thought of that! Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that it's a false positive, and I reported it as such not long after the reversion was done. I didn't re-revert, however, because I don't believe that Capella's influence was sufficient to warrant his being listed in the infobox. The same applies even more so to Aristarchus, who's also there. To justify listing these ancient writers as "influences", we really need some good secondary sources to tell us that Copernicus got rather more from them than what he records in De revolutionibus or its draft.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks very much. Please feel free to remove it - now it's decoupled from the vandalism false positive I've no personal commitment to it. I just didn't want the new editor's contribution lost in that way ... but if it's merely wrong, not evil, please carry on! I'm absolutely not qualified to go in to bat for either side here. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Better image

Hi, May I suggest to use File:Nicolaus Copernicus. Reproduction of line engraving.jpg, which is a much better image. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of aesthetic judgement I guess. The present one is sort of a classic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Polish but of Prussian descent?

How come someone added a phrase "of Prussian descent"? This is a lie! He was a Polish Silesian and Prussian astronomer and mathematician, of predominantly Polish ethnic descent. - This is how it should look like! Both of Kopernik's parents came from the famillies that fought against the German Teutonic Order. It means something, doesn't it? The Germans will never accept the truth. Copernicus's REAL surname was "Kopernik". This surname still funcions in Poland, while you won't find a surname "Koppernigk" nowhere except that fake German Copernicus case. Was he the only one in the world with the Koppernigk" surname? No, because his real last name obviously was "Kopernik". 80% of Copernicus's family was of Polish ethnicity. He chose to make carreer in Germany and made many of his works in Latin and German because back in the day Poland gave him no perspective of education, not even a chance to be known as a scientist. That doesn't change the fact that his original name was "Mikolaj Kopernik" and that he was of predominantly Polish descent. In Germany they still say that he was German and had no connection to Poland. On the German version of the article, there's no sign of his real name! It's scandalous. I observe that notable people of Polish descent who made something great or who achieved something more than living in a "Polish ghetto", are frequently denied to be Polish, while some infamous persons like Richard Kuklinski are always loudly described as Polish. The Germans also claim that Bukowski is not a Polish surname. If Copernicus was a prominent criminal, Germans would then happily say that he was surely Polish, not German at all. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What you say is true, as witness the "nationality wars" of recent years involving attempts to de-Polonize Copernicus, Ignacy Domeyko, Chopin, Jan Dzierżoń, Maria Skłodowska Curie, and Joseph Conrad—nearly all of whom (an exception is Copernicus himself, who was born and lived out his life in the Kingdom of Poland), due to Polish national vicissitudes, mostly the Partitions of Poland, were compelled to seek sanctuary or better opportunities outside their native Poland.

After generations of such demeaning treatment, Polonia (the "Polish diaspora")—on the basis that "any publicity is better than no publicity"—are sometimes willing to settle even for ethnic kinship with murderers such as Ted Kaczynski.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your list includes very differen't cases - Chopin was a Polish nationalist, Jan Dzierżoń (was born and worked in Silesia, lost by Poland around 1372,so he didn't emigrate from Poland, because he had never lived in what was Poland before the division), Maria Skłodowska Curie and Joseph Conrad were active in Polish matters. Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bukowski is probably a Polish name preserved by a Germanised family, maybe Ukrainian from Galitsia. A Russian name would be written rather Bukovsky.Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

First, would you please log in. Working under an IP is impolite. Second - have you added the "Polish" into the article? Seems we have to rehash the whole debate of the last eight years here (or 250, if you start with the first faked info on Copernicus). Third: Do you have any proof that "Mikolaj" was ever used by Copernicus or some contemporary in any document?. Forth: There is no impact of debates on other people like Kuklinski or Bukowski on Copernicus heritage. Nil. If you feel wronged there, take it there. Fifth: "The Germans will never accept the truth" is a heck of a non-argument that perfectly works the other way around, too. Sixth: That Kopernikus fought against the Teutonic Order means exactly that he fought against it, nothing else on his nationality. Note that this particular part of the Teutonic Order became part of Poland a couple of years later. Does that make them culturally Polish? If so, what does that say about Kopernikus earlier fight against them? Kopernikus was at that time a citizen of Warmia, which at that time acknowledged the Polish king as souveraign, but thats it. Neither are Lithuanians Polish, nor are Scots English because the English queen wears their crown. Seventh: If you really want to enter the debate on his name, state your arguments without calling them "facts" or other peoples opinion "wrong" to start with. I could add on this point that most notations of his family name in the archives of Thorn use the double pp for Koppernikus, which speaks decisively against a Polish heritage of the name. Eight (and last): Please read through all the old pages of debate here before you open that can of worms again. But if you really want that debate (again), please state your arguments in a coherent non-emotional way. Simply claiming "the truth" because you believe in it will not make it so. I advice to keep the status quo here ASchudak (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So show me at least one living person with the surname Koppernigk who wouldn't be connected to the Copernicus case. Now, show me how many people have the surname Kopernik and of which ethnic descent are they. Kopernik has never used his original name because he publicated in Latin and Copernicus was his Latin form of his original name. Also, his brother was named Andrzej not Andreas! Andreas is a filthy lie. http://www.geni.com/people/Andrzej-Kopernik/6000000001127145386 Kopernik was obviously not German. His father faught against Germans and he felt Polish, so his mother who in fact was partially Prussian. Copernicus's grandfather from his father's side was Jan Kopernik. Jan is a Polish version of John. PS. "Bukowski" is 100% Polish surname. Only the Polish version ends with "wski". Ukrainian would be "vskiy", "vsky", or "vski". 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Copernicus also was Canon in Warmia, which was a Prussian Prince-Bishopry under the protectorate of the Kingdom of Poland. He was born in Royal Prussia, also a protectorate of Poland. Do you have ONE SINGLE contemporary source that names him Andrzej? The case here seems to be indentical with that of Nicolaus (not surprising, as both were brothers), which eludes a neutral conclusion. Stating in front that anybody who disagrees here utters a "filthy lie" is in violation of the Wikipedia guidlines for talk pages, especially "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" - not to speak of the "sign your post". ASchudak (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicolaus Copernicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100222083725/http://www.iupac.org:80/web/nt/2010-02-20_112_Copernicium to http://www.iupac.org/web/nt/2010-02-20_112_Copernicium

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic priest debate

I know my effort may be futile, since the anti-Catholicism on Wikipedia is so off the charts, but here we go ... This article asserts without question that Copernicus was not a priest. The sources used for the claim make the error in failing to realize that Copernicus was believed to be a canon, and, by definition, a canon is a priest. In other words, at the very least, there is a debate over whether or not Copernicus was a priest, even though he more likely was. 108.49.211.137 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your reading of the sources you criticise can't have been very thorough, since even a cursory perusal of them will clearly reveal that they haven't committed the error you accuse them of. On page 658 of the first source, Edward Rosen, the author of them both, states that Copernicus

" ... held his canonry about forty-five years, a decade longer than his scholastry. We have legal and official documents concerning both the inception and the termination of Copernicus' canonry as well as of his scholastry. But concerning his alleged priesthood we have no such evidence."

On page 49 of the second source he cites a primary document which he says "correctly classifies Copernicus as a canon, but not a priest".

Obviously, Rosen cannot share your opinion that "by definition, a canon is a priest", which also doesn't appear to be supported by the article on canons in the Catholic Encyclopedia. That article states that the requirement for canons to hold "Sacred orders" was instituted by the Council of Trent, which did not take place until after Copernicus had died. Rosen's articles cite very strong documentary evidence that the canons of Frombork Cathedral typicallly, as well as Copernicus himself in particular, only ever held minor orders, not the Sacerdotal orders which would have entitled them to be called "priests".

If there is any current disagreement in scholarly sources over this issue, then obviously the article would need to be changed to reflect that. But as far I have been able to determine there simply isn't any, so you will need to provide some evidence of such a disagreement to justify any proposed change to the article

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Canons are not by definition priests, it is just that today only priests are appointed canons in the Catholic church. The Anglican church still appoints lay persons as canons. TFD (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite Rosen's assertion that he was not a priest most reliable sources indicate that it was uncertain. The Catholic Encyclopedia says there is no evidence of his ordination but that it was probable due to his candidacy for an episcopal seat. While a canon may not be a priest, a bishop must be. I have edited to indicate that it is uncertain whether he was ordained, that Rosen says he was not, and that the CE says it was probable for the aforementioned reason. Mamalujo (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Commentariolus originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page Outline

The article Commentariolus states it originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page outline. This should be included in this article as well as listing the 7 Postulates. - Galileo Galilei 50.153.107.15 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that you have read the article on Copernicus. It currently does mention the seven in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.85.248 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Earth's three motions

This phrase is used without explanation in the article or in a footnote. I searched on the phrase (in Wikipedia and generally) and came up with no elucidating responses. Does it refer to rotation, orbiting and precession??JeanEva Rose (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC) OOPS! I just found a reference on Wikipedia--in the article "Copernicus' Heliocentricity."JeanEva Rose (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

EDIT 180.190.90.19 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —C.Fred (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia become unreliable,like it used to be in the beginning

Tedious nationalistic ranting

It seems to me that this article starts 1.dont say where he was born and don't say where he died.2.right of the bat instead of starting with the youngest years of Copernicus,you put some half brained nonsense about his family,as to make a connection that that he had some German background(germany was not even existent).You write for example abourt his father ,that he was from Krakow but you don,t write Krakow,Poland,same goes for other cities.Copernicus was a Polish astronomer,who was a hardcore supporter and reliable subject of Polish king,he was involved in many political diplomatic missions for Poland and for the KIng,and he hated the Knight of the cross(or as you call them teutonic knights)just like his father who fought against them.THIS ARTICLE IS A MANIPULATION BY SOME GERMAN,IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HISTORY,IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY I REQUEST THAT WIKIPEDIA WARN PEOPLE READING THIS PAGE THAT IT IS NOT RELIABLE. PS:latin was practically an official language in Poland,but Copernicus spoke Polish,and saw himself as a Pole(naturally),i belive that many "historical" artcles written by Germans are so full of lies and propaganda that it schould be throughly studied before putting them on wikipedia,some claim that it was a german who discovered America Jan Koln. THIS IS SERIOUS AND FOR THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO READ ABOUT COPERNICUS I SAY GO TO A REAL ENCICLOPEDIA,BUY SOME BOOKS ABOUT COPERNICUS OR GO TO TORUN,KRAKOW AND FROMBORK IN POLAND ,THEY HAVE GREAT MUSEUMS DEDICATED TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY. PLEAS MAKE SOME CHANGES BECAUSE THAT ARTICLE NOT ONLY IS HISTORICALLY INCORRECT BUT ALSO THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. PS:to a German who wrote it,i know you burned all reliable historical books in big fire in Munich ,but now you can get them outside of Germany i suggest that you do.THIS IS NOT A SITE FOR NAZI GERMANY AND GOEBBELS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryfit (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Just because you don't like the way the article reads doesn't mean it's unreliable. Do you have any reliable sources to counter the article as it's currently written? Or is this just the usual nationalistic nonsense that crops up around this article all the time? clpo13(talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) The problem is this ,if you write the day of his birth you also have to write where,you do not do it,that is a no brainer,you start ,instead of with the Copernicks birth ,school and etc,instead right away you show his families ancestry-right there that is a big MANIPULATION,and the list goes on,Copernicus like his futher was a hardcore supporter of Polish king and Polish kingdom ,he even commanded some units in fight agianst the order,every respectable scholar calls him Polish astronomer,or reneissance astronomer born and educated in Poland,and even in your article ,under "nationality" there is shown the proper way the real scholars see it,he was not German and that is it ,maybe Merkel is Polish because she has some Polish blood in her?either do it correctly,like i said call the institute in Frombork,and set it straight or this article needs to be put on hold,because this is pure manipulation,and like some american dude wrote he is good with Polish astronomer and he never head of Copernicus being called German astronomer,i guess your personal agenda gets in the way between you and all those scholars in Fromborg and Cracow and the guys from Brittanica for example,.For now the whole article is one big mess ,which instead of teaching people about Copernicus is set to show the parts of his German ancestry(which parts ?,Bavaria,Saxony?,free city of Lubeck?,Wismar?)Anyways this article is not right,too much manipulation and half truths,needs to be redone ,but for now it needs to be put aside.Call oxford ,call University of Cracow and ask them,this is not a joke,you either are writing historical stuff,or write for your personal belief and satiscaftion,which have no place in historical studies. PS:check it,correct it. To the german fella that likes to think that the germans have everything to do with everything,Copernicus was of mixed Polish-German heritage just like me,but he was a Pole,you are using your personal side of the story ,and the whole article needs to be redone,this is a case in which you aschudak spreading unreliable information,plus you are manipulating the whole text so the reader thinks from the start of Copernicusis background,you did not put the name of the city and country where he was born and etc.,this is DISGUSTING MANIPULATION,PLEASE GO TO FROMBORK,TORUN ,CRACOW IN POLAND,ant talk to real scholar,because according to you rommel was german but himmler was a nazi from naziland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryfit (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC) As you refer to me by name, kindly desist to to claim that I made any comments on Rommel or Himmler. In addition, I made exactly ONE change in whole article, and that was a simple reverse change from "polish" to "renaissance" - I ceertainly did not "manipulate the whole text", and when I "spread unreliable information", I did it just here in the talk-section. If you want to contribute to this debate, which wents ahead for several years here and some 250 years in the real world, please state your argument in a coherent way without assaulting or insulting other contributors. "Assume good faith" is a basic rule of all Wikipedia debates. As to your insistence of his brithplace being in Poland, and thus he being Polish - if you go along that way, there are not many Scots around, as all would be English (not British). On the same note, there would not be many Poles around from ~1800 to 1918, as most would be born in areas ultimately under the Rule of Prussia, Russia or Austria, and what would you claim the minorities to be, eg. the some 20% Germans living in Cracow around Copernicus time? Were there any Lithuanians, or are they all Polish? Parts of Prussia ceded from Deutschorden and accepted the Polish King as sovereign at that time, but they were not part of the Kingdom of Poland yet. On another note, how many Polish students joined the German natio at Bologna, or left many documents in German but none in Polish? And if fighting for or against someone gives you a cultural nationality, then there are many biographies to be changed - just look at Copernicus contemporary, the Duke of Bourbon who fought against France for Charles. Personally I believe that Copernicus most likely considered Warnia his home, at a time where Warnia was not "Polish" in any cultural sense, which makes him a Prussian. I admit however that "Prussian" got a different meaning a couple of centuries later, so "Renaissance" may well be the best term that all can agree upon. If you can not, please read the arguments already exchanged over the last years here and then contribute yours in a non offensive manner. Thanks. ASchudak (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) An overwhelming majority of reliable source disagree with your original research and explicitly use the word Polish when describing Copernicus. Typically just going with the sources is best. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) I did not do any original research. Many of those who did, however, disagree upon his nationality. There are also several reasons why many "reliable" sources name him Polish that have nothing to do with research. The fact that many English speaking encyclopedias do is actually mentioned in the chapter "nationality" - as are a good number of researchers who claim that any assignment of a "nationality" would be erroneous. On another note, if just the majority decides what is true or not, the Copernican model would never have taken hold. ASchudak (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Yeah,except that Copernicus father was born in Krakow,and Prussia those days was something totally different ,Copernicus was a fanatical supporter of the Polish king and Polish kingdom,and he hated the teutonic order,no one ever,called Copernicus German Astronomer ,and yes there was no Germany at the time but other astronomers that were German were called German astronomer,my knowledge of Copernicus is way better than yours,Germany started calling him German astronomer in 20th century ,you know who started calling him that,right?and please don,t get protective and make a big sign "rant",buddy this whole article is a german rant,i also have German background and what,and this is just a copy of German article,why not from Poland,why not from Sweden,why not from Denmark,plus the real encyklopedias say something alse,i am going to do another page on Copernicus and than we can talk which version is the more historically accurate ,and once who decided that the German page was the one to be copied,who.You know when wikipedia first started it was the Germans who were writing the worst innacurate articles.So anyway i am going to write another wikipedia page on Copernicus,so if you are not a manipulator than let compare the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.58.14 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Just a few comments. First, yes, Prussia those days was something totally different. It was a territory that had seceded from the Teutonic Order just some 30 years before Copernicus was born, and only acknowledged the Polish King as soverain (without joining the Kingom) some 7 years before his birth. Royal Prussa and Warmia were NOT part of Poland, nor were its inhabitants automatically more Polish then the inhabitants of Scotland were English after that Union. Full integration of Warnia into the Polish state took almost some 300 years. Second, please provide proof for "fanatical" support for the Polish king. Copernicus fought for Warnia, which was subject to the Polish king, and as thus even commanded Polish troops at times - but that has no bearing on his nationality, especially not his cultural heritage, or a lot of soldiers would swap their nationality. Actually Warnia was in open conflict with Poland until 1479, and on the other side these "Germans" that Copernicus fought joined the King of Poland the same way as Royal Prussia just a few years later. Does that step made all these members of the Teutonic order instant Poles? Third (and finally) the debate on Copernicus nationality did not start with Hitler, it goes back at least a hundred years before (Watterich, Prowe) and for well over a hundred years before the wrong assumption that Copernicus had joined the Polish natio at Padua has wrongly influenced historians. Anyway, the fact that Germany during the Nazitime claimed Copernicus heritage does not make that assumption wrong or right, though it explains why many modern "historians" repeat the claim he is Polish without much research. Personally I am convinced that either claim - being German or Polish - to the extent that it excludes the other is just wrong. ASchudak (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

German name

The lead begins, "Nicolaus Copernicus (/kɵˈpɜrnɪkəs/;[1] Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik [miˈkɔwaj kɔˈpɛrɲik]; German: Nikolaus Kopernikus..." The original German spelling had been Nicolaus Copernicus, but "c" was changed to "k" after the German Orthographic Conference of 1901.[22] And Nicolaus Copernicus is a Latinized version of his name, the German equivalent of his first name is Niclaus (or Niklaus.) Whether or not he was ethically German, providing the 20th century German spelling of his latinized name provides no value to readers and I will remove it. TFD (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, this has been discussed in all depth. Not again. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why mention the post-1901 German spelling of his name when it was spelled in German exactly as it appears before 1901? TFD (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm kinda with the "oh no, not again" school of thought. Do we really want another round of the wars? As it says in the intro in a carefully written comment:

NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the two introductory paragraphs. They represent a consensus as to how best to present the essential information about Copernicus in the article's introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Copernicus is a contentious issue: see the talk page and its archives.

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been lengthy discussion about whether Copernicus was German or Polish. The title of this article uses the pre-1902 German spelling because that is how his name is typically written in English. It was not written in German that way during his lifetime. Note that his Christian name is typically spelled "Nicholas" and occasionally "Nicolas" in English, and both these spellings are used, although less commonly, for his name in English. His Christian name is generally spelled "Niclaus" or "Niklaus" in German. I fail to see how noting the post 1902 German spelling provides any useful information. Why not mention that his name in Italian is "Niccolò Copernico?" TFD (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a stranger to the wars myself; I edit this one for the science. But, if asked, I'd say that Nicolaus Copernicus (/kɵˈpɜrnɪkəs/;[1] Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik [miˈkɔwaj kɔˈpɛrɲik] ( listen); German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) maintains the Polish / German balance, whereas Nicolaus Copernicus (/kɵˈpɜrnɪkəs/;[1] Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik [miˈkɔwaj kɔˈpɛrɲik] ( listen); 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) might appear not to, and hence offend some people William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote: he was consciously a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic

The Polish-Lithuanian Republic did not exist at his time. In stead, 77.215.171.82 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)he was consciously a subject to the Polish king.

Gandhi was a subject of George VI. Did that make him an Englishman? TFD (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar Error/ Awkward Phrasing in First Section

"Copernicus was born and died..." should be changed.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016

Please change "..was born and died in..." in the intro paragraph to "...was born and had died in..." please. The current revision is awkwardly worded. Tessaract2 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done – ungrammatical. I have no objection to recasting the sentence, but that verb-tense doesn’t work. What about something like “… was born in RP, … since 1466, where he also spent the latter part of his life.”?—Odysseus1479 22:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That would work as well. I just think that the wording should be change because it's kind of awkward. Tessaract2 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As a non-native English speaker I fail to see what is awkward in that phrase. If you think it needs changing, go ahead, though. ASchudak (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As a native English-speaker I, too, see nothing awkward in "was born and died in". Nihil novi (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The current phrasing is correct, because to be born is a passive verb while to die is an active verb. They are conjugated "was born," "has been born," "had been born;" "died," "has died," "had died." TFD (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

German?

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

Look at the sources rather than opinions of some IP: Copernicus "German astronomer" brings up hits which are talking about Copernicus' influence on Kepler or his relations with Rheticus (German astronomers). Copernicus "Polish astronomer" has sources which are actually referring to Copernicus. Or here is Britannica.Volunteer Marek 06:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There was of course no Germany at the time, but it is disputed whether Copernicus was ethnically and culturally German or Polish. TFD (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Still, need sources.Volunteer Marek 07:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, there was no Germany in Kepler's time either but there's a ton of sources which happily and rightly describe him as a "German astronomer".Volunteer Marek 07:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

His family background is mentioned in the article and is sourced. TFD (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup.Volunteer Marek 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As Copernicus was born in Royal Prussia, which was just a decade before his birth still part of the State of the Teutonic Order, and there is evidence he spoke and wrote German and had strong German ties (as joining he German natio in Bologna) you can imho safely put him into the "German" category. As Royal Prussia acknowledged the Polish king as souvereign and in the decades to come became incorporated into Poland (until the partition some 300 years later) and he lived and studied in Cracow you can also put him into the Polish category. He was a citizen of Prussia during this time of transition from a German dominated state into a Polish province (just as the rest of the Teutonic order during his lifetime), and so I think you can use both, either or no classification (calling him just Prussian). His parents or family might have German roots, but his descendants (if there had been any) certainly would have become Polish. ASchudak (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (particularly the "German natio" in Bologna - see the section on "Languages"). Again, at the end of the day you need sources which call him a "German astronomer" or ones which call him a "Polish astronomer". There really aren't any for the former, at least not ones dating to after WWI. There's plenty for the latter. There are also very few which refer to him as "Polish-German Astronomer" [23].

I actually don't care if his nationality is mentioned in the lede or not. The part that annoys me is that some users abuse this "no nationality in the lede" dictum to remove any mention of his association with Poland (like the fact that he led Polish troops in battle, that he was a finance minister to the Polish king, etc.). That right there is sacrificing the encyclopedianess of the article and inclusion of useful information on the altar of nationalistic intransigence.Volunteer Marek 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say he was a "Polish astronomer" then we should say so. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with ArtifexMayhem, Copernicus should be mentioned as "Polish astronomer". --Yemote (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And could you change the Schweidnitz (Świdnica). Swidnica was under Piast (Polish royal family) rule up to 1380 and after that long in Bohemia (a Slavic rule) the name was originally and long after Copernicus Świdnica. Watzenrodes (Copernicus' mather) family moved from there somewhat around 1380 into mainland of Polish Kingdom. It is unknown how many generation they were in Świdnica, however we know they were in close relation to Polish Royal interests and Polish families merchants a noble already there. --Yemote (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure Copernicus is a German astronom. NightoverBratland (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography he was a "Polish doctor and astronomer" - could someone add it to the list of sources referring to Copernicus as Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide complete bibliographical details of The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography (where published, name of publisher, year of publication) and the page numbers of the "Copernicus" entry? Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He was never German. This is the same claim as for Nikola Tesla, being an American or even German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.244.186 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well... that somebody claims Tesla as an American is proof for exactly what regarding Copernicus? 8 years of debate here, spread over half a dozen archive pages, reflecting on some 290 years of historical debates, and finally we have the argument that concludes its all. Please read the archive and if you have something NEW to add you will find an audience here.ASchudak (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Germans will never accept the truth. Copernicus's REAL surname was "Kopernik". This surname still funcions in Poland, while you won't find a surname "Koppernigk" nowhere except that fake German Copernicus case. Was he the only one in the world with the Koppernigk" surname? No, because his real last name obviously was "Kopernik". 80% of Copernicus's family was of Polish ethnicity. He chose to make carreer in Germany and made many of his works in Latin and German because back in the day Poland gave him no perspective of education, not even a chance to be known as a scientist. That doesn't change the fact that his original name was "Mikolaj Kopernik" and that he was of predominantly Polish descent. In Germany they still say that he was German and had no connection to Poland. On the German version of the article, there's no sign of his real name! It's scandalous. I observe that notable people of Polish descent who made something great or who achieved something more than living in a "Polish ghetto", are frequently denied to be Polish, while some infamous persons like Richard Kuklinski are always loudly described as Polish. The Germans also claim that Bukowski is not a Polish surname. If Copernicus was a prominent criminal, Germans would then happily say that he was surely Polish, not German at all. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see that you know "the truth", regardless of (see above) 290 years of inconclusive historical debate and 8 years of similarly inconclusive debate on this forum. Afaik the part on his nationality in this article is pretty much point on. Regarding the "Mikolaj" - please refer to any source that uses this spelling during (or close to) his lifetime, and I will include it in the German article. And while the German wikipedia-page might not give his Polish name, it at least does not claim to know "the truth" and calls him a "Renaissance" astrologer, not a German - unlike the Polish site which makes him Polish, though it mentions the German version of his name. BTW: -ski might be a typical Polish (or Kashubian, or German - my Grandmother was a Baranowski) surname suffix, but the origins of an American criminal hardly play any role in the debate on Copernikus ASchudak (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As he was Polish-born he is not German for Wikipedia as long as nobody presents evidence for his German ethnic origin. Please remove that name from the lead unless you can evidence that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kopernikus was indeed very likely German. In regard of the decent as well as in the one of the birthplace. The names of Kopernik (Köpernig/Köpernich) and Watzenrode (Weizenrode) are quite clearly German. Krakow had a large German population in those days of about 35% and Torun (Thorn) was a German settlement at all. There is evidence the family was German speaking and the Christian names were also German: Nikolaus, Barbara, Andreas, Katharina. There is no evidence of any similar Polish heritage. Kopernikus was born shortly after western Prussia became independent and got the Polish king as head of state. But it did not became part of the Kingdom of Poland. It was called Royal Prussia, not Polish Prussia. It was a Personal Union like the one when August the Strong became King of Poland. Poland did not became a part of Saxony because of this, it remained another country. So did Royal Prussia, at least in the beginning, later it was slightly annexed, except for the German cities in the area. Beside this Royal Prussia was not acknowledged by the Pope and the Kaiser during the life of Kopernikus, so it was in this respect internationally not even legal. - Many Polish people still insist in Kopernikus being Polish. Just by traditions of suppositions. If not lies. At one time in history this is going to damage their reputation badly, because the world will see it has been betrayed by them -and worse- very likely by intention. Who do they think they are? --2003:46:1A14:C401:C5E0:44AC:E7C2:3C51 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say he's Polish , just based off what I read from wiki and searching around. He was born in Poland , and his nationality is polish - http://www.nndb.com/people/041/000029951/ .There's a ton of information about this out there. They even have universities named after him in Poland.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I like how some folks here noted that Prussian born would point to him being German. Prussia was a sort of occupied territory for centuries. You might as well say that all Chinese are Mongols and so would be over half of Russians now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.82.242 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The article has clearly a leaning towards pushing the idea that Copernicus is Polish, e.g. that he was "postulated to speak German" while it is given as fact that he spoke Polish even though documents with the Polish court are in Latin. The authors seem to see reason to doubt that he was Polish to try to defend. This is silly, this should not be in English wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.105 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point. The ref for "he spoke Polish" says

In recording the names of the numerous Polish peasants involved in these Leases, Copernicus "registered the phonetic characteristics of the Polish language correctly."1 Yet in the same entry Copernicus wrote both Czepan and Zcepan2. This transposition of the first two letters indicates that he was trying to reproduce phonetically the sounds he heard, and provides no basis for the conclusion that he "not only knew the Polish language but spoke it fluently enough to be able to use it in his dealings with Polish peasants"3. He wrote the Polish names as well as could be done by an intelligent and conscientious administrator essentially unfamiliar with that language. How did he and his German-speaking predecessors and successors as administrators communicate with their Polish subjects? In this region and period of rapid demographic change, Poles were migrating northward in increasing numbers into a land previously populated predominantly by German-speaking peasants. In these commingled groups, persons familiar with the limited bilingual vocabulary required for these transactions may not have been hard to find.

which is pretty much the reverse of "he spoke Polish" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In order to mantain uniformity of the Wikipedia as a whole, if the nationality of Copernicus must be stated, it should be be Royal Prussian (Thorn/Torun), so he would neither be full polnish nor full german - and end this nonsense debate. The article about the City of Torun states cleary that it remained a FREE CITY under the patronage of the Polnish King. Also, under the article "Royal Prussia" anexation only occured in 1772, over 200 years after Copernicus death. Under the article "Silesia", same issue happens, it states clearly that "most of it" only was conquered by the polnish after 1742, again, centuries after Copernicus death. It is hard to say he was polnish (not existing real proof that he was able to speak polnish) and it is hard to say that he was german (even with him signing the German stuff at Bologna). Nationality wasn´t a matter in his time and shouldn't be today when remembering him. So, the only realiable information is: he was Royal Prussian. Rest is speculation. 152.236.178.205 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The mother tongue of Kopernikus was German. The Country where he lived was German. Everything else are Polish lies. It is no wonder that the English support fake history as they always did. You are the reason why people like Hitler came to power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.185.40 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2016‎ (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and this is just nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Honoured

Copernicus is said to be honoured by the Episcopalian Church in America, although he was not a Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.166 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

HOMEWORK HELP

Was Copernicus against the bible? Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

@Iamthemostwanted2015: Questions like this should be asked at the reference desk, not on an article talk page. Talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not general discussion of the subject (see WP:NOTFORUM). clpo13_(talk) 23:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dava Sobel's book

Should any Copernicus aficionado have a good deal of free time on his hands, in 2011 Dava Sobel published a book, A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos, that could help bring our "Copernicus" article to featured-article status.

The book incidentally includes, as the second of its three parts, an 80-page play on Rheticus' visit to Copernicus—an evocative play which is historically inspired and well worth reading in its own right.

The balance of the book is a thoroughly researched biography of Copernicus that recounts much that is not covered by our article and that places that which is covered in a more complete historic context. For example, did we know that Copernicus' brother and fellow Frombork canon Andreas came down with leprosy, was consequently banished from Warmia, and eventually died in Italy? What prompted Copernicus to lend his medical assistance to a courtier of Albert, Duke of Prussia, against whose marauding Teutonic Knights Copernicus had earlier helped defend Warmia? What induced the Duke, years after Copernicus' death, to publish Erasmus Reinhold's Prutenic Tables, based on Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium?

The book is available in inexpensive paperback and may well be found at a local library.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Dava Sobel's book is not reliable. The book or the publishers' blurb says that Copernicus made "hundreds" of observations. This claim is not supported by quotations of R.A. and Declinations. Gingerich mentions 16 observations made by Copernicus. These do include R.A. and Dec. figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not find the assertion of "hundreds" of observations in my copy of Sobel's book. Could you please cite the page(s) in question?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The electronic search facility of the Google Books copy finds no occurrences of the phrase "hundreds of observations", and none of the occurrences of the word "hundreds" or of the word "observations" that it does find seems to me to be associated with any claim of "hundreds of observations", While this test is not entirely foolproof, it certainly increases my scepticism that Sobel's book contains such a claim.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

See https://www.amazon.com/More-Perfect-Heaven-Copernicus-Revolutionized/dp/0802717934

This has "hundreds of observations". It is hard to say who wrote it. It sounds like a blurb and is an attempt to sell new copies. Bloomsbury and Sobel might have approved of the apparent blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.225 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dava Sobel has her own page on Amazon. There is also a shorter blurb on Amazon, which does not have the phrase "hundreds of observations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.225 (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The site http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/a-more-perfect-heaven-9781408822388/ does not mention the hundreds of observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See the publisher's web page for the e-book edition, where we find:

"Over the next two decades Copernicus expanded his theory through hundreds of sightings, leading to a secretive manuscript whose existence tantalised mathematicians and scientists all over the world."

—a sentence similar to the one on Amazon, but with the word "sightings" in place of "observations". While I would agree that this sentence is very sloppily written, it nevertheless does not say explicitly that these observations or sightings were made by Copernicus himself, as claimed above. Nor does it appear to me to imply unequivocally that this was the case. Moreover Copernicus's De Revolutionibus does in fact contain many hundreds of observations. In Book 3 alone there's a table of stellar celestial latitudes and longitudes which occupies folio 46, verso to folio 62, verso, a total of 34 pages, all but the last of which contain about 30 stellar positions each, making a total of more than 900 in all.

I see nothing here that would lead me to question the reliablity of Sobel's book.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The blurb says or implies that the hundreds of observations proved or "expanded" Copernicus's heliostatic theory. The latitudes and longitudes of the stars are the same in all theories, geostatic, heliostatic and relativistic. As a result, they do not prove or appear to prove Copernicus's heliostatic theory. The blurb uses deliberately vague terms like "expanded" and "through". Annual stellar parallax was too small to be detected in the 16th century A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The blurb speaks of secrecy. The article on Commentariolus shows that Copernicus's theory was common knowledge in Europe at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The blurb says "all over the world". I don't think the Congolese rain-forests were included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

One version of the blurb has "Europe", instead of the world. Either way, we are looking at a commercial blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.42 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Copernicus and Aristotle

Aristotle referred to the Pythagoreans and their moving earth. Translations of Aristotle from Arabic and Greek into Latin had been available for centuries, before 1510 and 1514. Whether Aristotle's remarks about the Pythagoreans came to Copernicus's notice, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.3.31 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

See Aristotle, De Caelo, Book 2, Part 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.3.31 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Rebuilding of Copernicus' Frombork tower

To the caption for Copernicus' Frombork tower, User TimeForLunch has added the information that the tower was rebuilt between 1955 and 1965.

When I was there at a later date, I was told that there were plans to rebuild Copernicus' tower.

I would appreciate a reliable source for the 1955-65 rebuilding period.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Copernicus and Aristarchus (2)

See Thomas W. Africa, Isis, Vol.52, No.3 (Sep. 1961), pages 403-409. On page 406, it says, "Copernicus owned George Valla's Outline of Knowledge (Aldus 1501) which included a translation of Plutarch's references to Aristarchus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This says the opposite of the remarks made by Dava Sobel in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Outline of Knowledge" seems to be the same as "De expetendis et fugiendis rebus", published in 1501, a year after Valla's death in 1500. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear when Copernicus first acquired a copy of Valla's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The article in the Italian Wikipedia on "De expetendis et fugiendis rebus" mentions E. Rosen's article entitled "Nicholas Copernicus and Giorgio Valla", Physis. Rivista internazionale di Storia della Scienza, 23, 1981, pp.449-457. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Copernicus and Aristarchus

A recent edit modified the text "Copernicus … formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe" in the article's lead by replacing the word "formulated" with the word "adapted", and appending the phrase "citing Aristarchus in a struck passage of his seminal work", as if to suggest that Aristarchus was the source of the heliocentric model supposedly adapted by Copernicus. After I had reverted the edit, the word "formulated" was then replaced with "adapted and refined". A statement that Copernicus either adapted, or refined, or adapted and refined, some pre-existing heliocentric model advances a dubious opinion which conflicts with that of at least one well-respected historian of science—namely, Owen Gingerich—, and is not one I believe Wikipedia should be asserting as an established fact.

In an article, Did Copernicus owe a debt to Aristarchus?, in the Journal for the History of Astronomy, cited as Reference 4 in Wikipedia's article, Gingerich argued, quite persuasively, in my opinion, that at the time Copernicus formulated his original version of the heliocentric model, some time before 1514, the only information he could likely have had about Aristarchus's work would have come from the following passage in Aetius's Opinions of the Philosophers (quoted on p.39):

"Aristarchus counts the Sun among the fixed stars; he has the Earth moving around the ecliptic and therefore by its inclinations he wants the Sun to be shadowed."

In fact, Gingerich argues—rather less persuasively, in my opinion— that although Copernicus might have acquired this information from a Greek edition of Aetius's Opinions published in 1509 (which Edward Rosen apparently surmised was the source for a quotation Copernicus used in De Revolutionibus), he more likely would not have become acquainted with it until a Latin edition of Opinions appeared in 1516. But even if this passage was known to Copernicus when he started formulating his theory, the few brief details it provides about Aristarchus's work could hardly be described as providing a "model" which was capable of being "adapted" or "refined".

Gingerich concludes (p.40):

There is no question but that Aristarchus had the priority of the heliocentric idea. Yet there is no evidence that Copernicus owed him anything. As far as we can tell both the idea and its justification were found independently by Copernicus." [italics added]

and in a footnote he cites another scholar, Eugen Brachvogel, as having apparently come to similar conclusions.

Unless someone can come up with a decent source to justify this altered wording, I shall revert it again.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

One further point is worth mentioning. The edit summary of the first edit alluded to above was "the heliocentric model is due to aristarchus and copernicus acknowledged that himself". The second clause of this assertion is inaccurate. The passage about Aristarchus which was omitted from the printed edition of De Revolutionibus was (in Gingerich's translation, pp.37 and 38 ):

"And if we should admit that the motion of the Sun and Moon is demonstrated even if the Earth is fixed, then with respect to the other wandering bodies there is less agreement. It is credible that for these and similar causes (and not for the reasons Aristotle mentions and rejects), Philolaus believed in the mobility of the Earth and some even say that Aristarchus was of the same opinion."

Thus, the idea mentioned in the omitted passage is that of geokineticism rather than heliocentrism, which is not quite the same thing. But even if Copernicus didn't regard that distinction as important, the passage nevertheless can't be regarded as acknowledging that the idea was "due to Aristarchus", because Philolaus predated him by about 150 years.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello there,

First of all, you left out how the given passage continues. It describes as "fact" that "very few philosophers in that time" "mastered the study of celestial motions". Very few is not zero. And having "mastered" the study means to have completed the study in the sense understandable at the time. And in fact, the article gives an argument, but it is not logically correct in several respects, and does therefore not constitute a valid scientific source.

Furthermore, even if he developed the idea independently, it must be clearly mentioned that he did not originate the idea, since this is a common misunderstanding (and I have at least one source for that). --Mathmensch (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm completely baffled by your first two sentences. I did not quote the continuation of the extract translated by Gingerich because it has nothing whatever to do with Aristarchus. The full text of that continuation is:

"But since such things could not be comprehended except by a keen intellect and continuing diligence, Plato did not conceal the fact that there were very few philosophers in that time who mastered the study of celestial motions."

Since Plato had already been dead for at least 30 years when Aristarchus was born, the latter could not possibly have been one of the "very few philosophers" who Plato thought had "mastered the study of celestial motions" in his time. The passage therefore tells us absolutely nothing about what Copernicus might have known, let alone have been acknowledging, about Aristarchus or his work.

I also find your dismissal of Gingerich's article as not constituting a "valid scientific source" utterly unconvincing. Gingerich is a very well-respected expert on the history of astronomy, and the article was published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal. I can't claim to be anything more than a reasonably well-read layman, but I do read any article on the history of science wih a fairly critical eye. Although I found some of Gingerich's arguments unconvincing, I can't say I noticed anything seriously wrong with the article. I'm afraid, therefore, that vague assertions that "it is not logically correct in several respects"—with no details or supporting argument provided, nor any source cited—don't carry any weight with me.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added, to our article's "Predecessors" subsection, information from Dava Sobel's 2011 book, A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos, which may bear on the question of whether Copernicus' heliocentric theory was inspired by Aristarchus' theory of the 3rd century BCE. Nihil novi (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Gingerich tells us twice that Valla did not mention Archimedes, writing about Aristarchus. Gingerich seems to pass over in silence Valla's reference to Plutarch, writing about Aristarchus. Gingerich seems to make no attempt to ascertain when Copernicus saw Valla's book, which was published in 1501, before 1510 and 1514. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2t78j (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that Brachvogel said much about Valla, Plutarch and Aristarchus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2t78j (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

Please add that Nicolaus Copernicus was a polish renaissance mathematician... Dawidwoj (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Sam Sailor 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

117.197.3.251 (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE CUT OTHER LANGUAGES

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

The article outwardly states "Copernicus was the child of German-speaking parents and grew up with German as his mother tongue." by cherry picking sources to prove one's point (which goes against the Wikipedia's policy). Ironically, one of the given sources, Martin Weissenbacher, writes that Copernicus's father was a Germanized Pole. Kopernik was Polish, the only people considering him "German of German speaking parents who grew up with German as his mother tongue", are Western pro-German historical revisionists. Ironically, it was the Nazis that mainly promoted such fringe view. All people in Poland from the day they step in the school, are taught that he was a Polish astronomer. English Wikipedia claims that Maria Skłodowska Curie was French, so was Fryderyk Chopin. Soon we will learn that in over 1000 years of history Poland did not produce any valuable son or daughter. Anti-Polish sentiments run high here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Copernicus's siblings' names

I'm posting this regarding that edit revert by William M. Connolley : [24] As all of the historians know, Kopernik's real name was Mikołaj, and Nicolaus was only its Latin equivallent under which he signed his major works. His siblings were Andrzej Kopernik, Barbara Kopernik, and Katarzyna Kopernik. However, in the article Andrzej and Katarzyna are presented as Andreas and Katharina. Why are they depicted as being named after Germanic customs? Yatzhek (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You need sources to support your assertion. TFD (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity (again)

Haven't we been through this before? Anway, now we have R changing him from "renaissance" to "polish" [25], A changing it back [26] and R reverting again [27]. I think it would be better left with the long-standing consensus, unless someone has a good reason otherwise that they are prepared to justify on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have once changed it back to "Renaissance", but will not enter into any editing war. I would like to hear any NEW arguments that go beyond the some 5 pages and 10 years of debate (reflecting on some 270 years of historical debate) that we already went though, before the "Renaissance" consensus is changed one way or the other. ASchudak (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia or reference book in the entire world describes Copernicus as Polish, except Wikipedia of course..what a joke. That's why the credibility of Wikipedia is often questioned. Giving up to few German trolls, "good job" Wikipedia. Way to go.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.24.94 (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/copernicus.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawidwoj (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

How it is possible that person could have no nationality? Please don't call this consensus, because it is unfortunately not. If someone was born in Kingdom of Poland then one is polish.

The German revisionists are very active on Wikipedia, note that some of them are even administrators here. Too bad that others are bending over to this BS. :) Did you guys know that Adolf Hitler also declared Copernicus to be "German"?50.67.24.94 (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/not-german-but-also-not-polish/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Copernicus was ethnically 90% Polish and about 10% German. All those Germans mentioned as members of his family were not from his genetic kin. His real surname was Kopernik, and this surname functions in Poland until the present day, while you won't find any family tree in the whole world with the last name "Copernicus" or "Koppernigk" or "Kopernikus", of course except the referrence to Nicolaus. The German Wikipedia lies hardly about Copernicus, that his last name "Kopernik" was a "polonized version" of his "original" last name "Koppernigk". I'm shocked. This is a lie, because it's exactly the other way round, it is "Koppernigk" which is a germanized version of the originally Polish last name - Kopernik. You can easily find the truth by yourself simply by making a research on how many Koperniks are in the world right now, you'll notice that all are of Polish descent. Anyone else has something to say? Yatzhek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you have some reliable sources for this information - preferably some that are academically published and peer reviewed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Polish claim Kopernikus as Polish since centuries. They like to polonize as others like to paint with their favorite colour. Today all these unproven statements are taken as references. The famous English historians have been overwhelmed by this furor and the difficulties of the matter as well. They surrendered and even took the polonized expressions for originally German towns and citys. And therefore Kopernikus is despite his family and their names not German, but germanized. The merchant nobility of a German town is not German, it is also germanized or somehow mixed, a very special case indeed in Old Europe. There is no difference between Royal Prussia and Polish Prussia, it is all part of the Kindom of Poland. Likewise there is no difference between Personal Union and Territorial Union (Canada is part of the UK, because of the same Queen, isn't it?). There has been found a notice by Kopernikus in German, but also a Polish could had done that. They had not found a notice in Polish, because he wrote Latin. Kopernikus was part of the German student group at the university, because there had not been enough Slaws to build up their own. - By the way, Marie Curie was a Russian born French researcher, but her original name by birth was polonized German! --80.187.97.49 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As we see above, pro-Germanic theorists lie on every step. The user 80.187.97.49 even mentioned Skłodowska-Curie as "a Russian-born French researcher", as the truth is that she was born in Warsaw, Kingdom of Poland, which was then a part of Russian Empire, but it was an occupied Polish land. All of her siblings had pure Polish first names. She married a Frenchman, therefore her French last name. You shot in your own foot my friend, and you just proved that you are heavily biased in your opinions about Copernicus's ethnic background. Yatzhek (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As you say: Curie was born in the Russian Empire, therefore she was of Russian citizenship. That means, legally and in common language, that she was a Russian. And Poland had not been just occupied, but annexed in that time, that is a decisive difference in view of her formal legal status. Curie later became French, again in common language, by her marriage with a Frenchman and move to France. In the discussion about Kopernikus neither the legal status (Autonomous Royal Prussia) nor the ethnic origin (Pure German first names) is correctly reflected by Polish (and other) historians. The damage of their reputation is as obvious as the one of their moral. Not to talk about their behaviour. Finis.--80.187.114.50 (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

How it is possible that person could have no nationality? Please don't call this consensus, because it is unfortunatelly not. If someone was born in Kingdom of Poland then one is polish. Dawidwoj (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Sam Sailor 00:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Copernicus was so "German" alright.. especially in 1521 when he organized the defense of Olsztyn Siege_of_Allenstein against the German Teutonic_Order. Can't you guys see that your so-called "consensus" is just a plain revision of facts? As I mentioned before, Nazi Germany declared Copernicus to be "German" for ideological purposes. I'm afraid Wikipedia is unknowingly giving up to the Nazi propaganda and point of view. Sad and at the same time very scary..50.67.24.94 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not to open that barrel again, but just to give you the response that this particular argument usually gets: What you fight for, or especially against, does not really effect your cultural heritage. Eg, at roughly the same time the Duke of Bourbon - one of the foremost nobles of France - led the Imperial army against the French king, without becoming Spanish or German. Copernicus fought, to be precise, for Warmia - a province that before 1466 belonged to the Teutonic order and then became an autonom territory within the Polish kingdom as part of "Royal Prussia" (and which was in armed conflict with the Polish king on issues of that autonomy during the "War of the Priests" during that time without this making them more or less German). The "Teutonic Order" went the same way as Royal Prussia just four years after the conflict you mention, when their Grand Master decided to swap both religion and allegiance and joined the Polish Kingdom with his fiefdom as "Dukal Prussia" and thus became part of the German heritage of Poland - just like other territories (like Warmia) before. Does that make HIM and the former members of the Teutonic Order swap directly from being German to Polish?

On a more serious note: your "Nazi" argument - implying that those who claim Copernicus is German is "giving up to Nazi propaganda" is at best polemic, and certainly in severe violation with the Wikipedia rule of "assume good faith". The arguments brought here for several years - and in historical debate for well over twohundred years - are not automatically invalidated without any counterargument just because Nazis did this or that. Bring arguments that hold weight - preferably some that are new. Read the archive pages to see whats already been under debate. The consenus currently runs that either Polish or German only would probably be wrong, while Prussian or Warmian are insufficient or misleading (as today many automatically connect Prussian with German). ASchudak (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll not waste my time to debunk your arguments, YOU ARE GERMAN ASchudak and this explains everything. 70.79.149.167 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"If someone was born in Kingdom of Poland then one is polish." - So all born in the German or Russian Empire are Germans or Russians? What about Pilsudski, born in Wilna, Lithuania, then part of Russia? Russian, or Polish? Simplicity sometimes does not help. ASchudak (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lieber Schudak, I doubt that Royal Prussia has been part of the Kingdom of Poland. Later that was managed step by step by creating facts, but in the beginning the King of Poland was King of Royal Prussia seperately and at the same time (Personalunion). The deal had not been first to escape the Teutonic Order and then to be annexed by Poland! This means that Kopernikus was not a Pole by birth by law, but a Prussian with a Polish King. This is not reflected by most Wikipedia articles at all.--80.187.97.49 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In the peace of Thorn Royal Prussia is ceded from the territory of the Order to the Kingdom of Poland, and the treaty specifically says that it becomes "part of Poland". Royal Prussia retains autonomy, and naturally a territory becoming subject to a different kingdom does not really influence the cultural background of its inhabitants (at least not immediately), but legally Thorn was part of the Kingdom of Poland. However, at the same time many cultural Germans lived in Poland proper around 1500 (afaik Cracow has a German population of 10-20%), and eg. when Poland was divided and ceased to exist around 1790 for more then a century its inhabitants remain cultural Poles despite being ultimately subject to various other kings, emperors or czars. Political subordination and cultural heritage are different issues. Yet, Royal Prussia was by treaty an autonom region WITHIN the Kingdom of Poland, not just bound by personal union. It may be, however, that the citizens of Royal Prussia considered their status a bit different from what their former masters have agreed upon in a treaty that more or less was a capitulation. Warmia certainly went into armed conflict with Poland over question of the succession of the prince-bishop, so their integration was not that deep yet.

Anyway - Copernicus was born as a citizen of Royal Prussia, and chose to live in Warnia, both autonom territories that were subject to the Polish crown. That much should be undisputed. ASchudak (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicolaus Copernicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009151823/http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang01.htm to http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Polish

please change ((Polish)) to ((Polish language|Polish)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:E6B0:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Copernicus Most Likely was a Priest and certainly a Canon.

Copernicus was a roman catholic, a Canon, an adherent of the faith and most likely a priest later in his life. No mention of this is in the article. In 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood. The first sentence should not exclude the fact that he was a Canon. Particularly, in this age of perceived Scientism vs Religiousism, care should be exercised to state the facts regarding this pivotal person. He was a cleric, a Canon, and adherant to his faith, yet he succeeded in publishing his book about the orbits of the planets. That is important. Hiding this is devious, anti-truth and an intellectual lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1C4C:44B4:5951:6FCB:733 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Free

This article is mercifully free from the Trotskyite tracts that are appearing elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCD5:D01:31EA:C11B:E57C:54F2 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Legend

The assertion of Eric Temple Bell is called legend in this article. Legend should not appear here or the article will get very long. See Note 80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCD5:D01:31EA:C11B:E57C:54F2 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

See Eric Temple Bell, which implies that Bell was unreliable at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCD5:D01:31EA:C11B:E57C:54F2 (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicolaus Copernicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013153447/http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang10.htm to http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013153447/http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang10.htm to http://www.frombork.art.pl/Ang10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425004549/http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/en/2008031765/Prizes-by-PAU/Page-2.html to http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/en/2008031765/Prizes-by-PAU/Page-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

was a Renaissance- and Reformation-era

was a Renaissance - and Reformation - era ➡ looks better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:874D:2400:196C:14AE:2917:60D9 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicolaus Copernicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029214028/http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/pdfs/Copernicus-rev.pdf to http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/pdfs/Copernicus-rev.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://photo.pds.org:5005/advanced/article?id=ar132860&st=copernicus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In Copernicus's system the sun is not the midpoint of the revolutions, and not the center of the universe.

In Sect. "Copernicus" the "Commentariolus" is mentioned, but mistranslated. Paragraph 3 reads "All the spheres revolve about the sun as their midpoint, and therefore the sun is the center of the universe". Copernicus's Latin reads (Commentariolus, tertia petitio): "Omnes orbes ambire Solem, tanquam in medio omnium existentem, ideoque circa Solem esse centrum mundi". The last words truly say that "near by the Sun is the center of the world". Consequently the Sun herself is not the midpoint, and not the center of the revolutions. The scheme of the system shown in this Section is fake; it is not the one that Copernicus has in his autograph. It is well-known that the book "De revolutionibus", Nuremberg 1543, was not printed according to the autograph; therefore the true scheme is not the one from this book (which is shown here) but the one in the autograph. This is all well-known among all scientists who have carefully studied Copernicus's theory. Just read for example Noel M. Swerdlow, "Pseudodoxica Copernicana ...", Arch. Int. d'histoire des sciences, 46, 108-156, and his criticism of Edward Rosen's translations of Copernicus. Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2836:3146:5288:9634:8754 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit makes the article self-contradicting because it now says both that Copernicus claimed the sun was and was not at the center of the universe. If we do that, we need explanation. What is the consensus among historians, did Copernicus change his views, how did contemporaries view his theory, and why would he have not seen the sun as the center? Was it based on observation or gravitational theory? TFD (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit mentioned by TFD is by David J Wilson, who is probably not the same person as 2003:D2:9724:2836:3146:5288:9634:8754 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:AC47:AE44:62D6:75E8 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2003 seems to be in Germany and Wilson seems to be in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:AC47:AE44:62D6:75E8 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the difference between the two remarks about the Sun. It is hardly worth arguing the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:AC47:AE44:62D6:75E8 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ The four Deuces: (1) Consensus among historians who have studied Copernicus is that in his system the Sun is not at the center. (2) C. never changed his view. (3) Johannes Kepler saw this clearly; in his Astronomia Nova (1609) he claims to have been the first who put the Sun at the center, where it in Copernicus's theory is not. (4) According to C. the sun cannot be at the center because in a rotating system all bodies are in motion about the center at rest (C. De revolutionibus, Book I chapt. 5, at the end; cf. Isaac Newton, Principia, Book I, the third law of motion with corollary iv). (5) C.'s view was and is true according to undisputed mechanics (Newton's law 3, and Corollary iv, that is). Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2891:6C83:7C91:A22B:11A6 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Newton was born 100 years after Copernicus died, you would need to show that he had developed a theory of gravity. Alternatively you could point to mathematical calculations. Also, you need a source that says historians hold this interpretation. Incidentally, if the center of the solar system was at rest, it would be more likely to be at the center of the sun in a heliocentric system. TFD (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just criticising the fact that the article rests on a mistranslation of Copernicus's Commentariolus and on a picture that is not that of Copernicus but shows a misrepresentation of Copernicus's system. This to put right in the article is evidently necessary, and has nothing to do with the question whether Copernicus "had developed a theory of gravity", nor with "mathematical calculations" or what a view "historians hold". Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2891:6C83:7C91:A22B:11A6 (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Dellian—contributing from the IP Address 2003:D2: … —and I are not the same person. In fact, I disagree with much of what he has written, and am highly sceptical about most of the rest. But on two points, at least, he is verifiably correct:

• Noel Swerdlow's translation of Copernicus's third postulate from the Commentariolus is more accurate than Edward Rosen's. The key word in Copernicus's Latin is "circa". Even with my now very rusty schoolboy Latin I can work out that Swerdlow's "... and therefore the center of the universe is near the sun" [emphasis added] is an almost exact literal translation of the relevant Latin phrase, "... ideoque circa Solem esse centrum mundi", while Rosen's " ... and therefore the sun is the centre of the universe", is not. For Rosen's version to be exactly literal, the Latin would have to be something like " ... ideoque Sol est centrum mundi"—i.e. with no "circa", "Sun" in the nominative case, and the third person, present, singular, "est", rather than the infinitive, "esse", of the verb "to be". However, translating "esse" as "is" rather than the more strictly literal "to be" makes the English read much less awkardly and doesn't distort the meaning, which is presumably why both Rosen and Swerdlow do it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Rosen's version a "mistranslation", since I expect he is using the word "center" not to mean a precise geometrical point equidistant from every point on the surface of the hypothetical sphere of fixed stars, but something more like its meaning in the sentence "the emergency gathering area is the center of the sportsground"—i.e. a somewhat vaguely defined region of limited extent somewhere near the centroid of a larger circumscribing region.

Nevertheless, the ambiguity in Rosen's translation could well mislead readers of the article into thinking that Copernicus's meaning was the first of the two abovementioned, which it very clearly was not. So, in my opinion, it is far preferable for the article to base its statement of the third postulate on Swerdlow's more accurate translation.

• In neither the Commentariolus nor De Revolutionibus does Copernicus put the Sun at the geometrical centre of any of the planets' orbits, or even of the deferents of any of their orbits. In the Commentariolus the Sun's position is offset from the centre of the Earth's orbit by 1⁄25 of the orbit's radius. The orbital planes of all the planets pass through the center of the Earth's orbit, which is also the centre of their orbits' deferents.

In De Revolutionibus the Sun's position is offset from the centre of the Earth's orbit by 0.0323 (about 1⁄31) of the orbit's radius [corrected from: "0.0414 (about 1⁄24)"—see note below]. The deferents and first epicycles of the planets' orbits also get replaced by eccentric circles, but the construction of their orbits is still referred to the centre of the Earth's orbit rather than to the Sun, and their orbital planes still all pass through that centre.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: The figure I originally gave here (0.0414) was Copernicus's estimate for what the offset was in the time of Ptolemy. The corrected figure of 0.0323 is his estimate for what it was in his own time.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is still something to put right: The picture to the section "Copernicus" that is called "Copernicus's vision" contradicts the text. It the sun at the very middle of the system, which is not Copernicus's teaching. What is more, this printed picture is not produced according to the manuscript. It evidently contradicts in several respects the picture one finds in Copernicus's autograph, drawn by Copernicus himself, and by hand. This authentic picture can be found in the net; see this article, external links "De Revolutionibus", autograph manuscript, full digital facsimile. The authentic picture shows the center of the system "empty"; therefore Arthur Koestler already in 1959 (The Sleepwalkers) called the system "vacuocentric". By counting the number of the circles one learns that the innermost circle belongs to the sun, which also rotates about the empty center. By the way, once more one "sees" here that Copernicus's system is not heliocentric. Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2802:2828:3D26:7CE0:2703 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the Sun "rotates about the empty center", or indeed that it has any motion whatsoever in Copernicus's system, is demonstrably false. In book I, chapter 10 of De Revolutionibus—p.9r of both the first printed edition and the surviving autograph manuscript—Copernicus wrote:

quo etiam Sole immobili permanente, quicquid de motu Solis apparet, hoc potius in mobilitate terrae verificari

whereby, with the Sun also permanently motionless, whatever appears to be a motion of the Sun can be attributed to the Earth's motion

In your second comment above you make a confident pronouncement about the "[c]onsensus among historians who have studied Copernicus". If any degree of credibility can be attached to that pronouncement, then you would know that the overwhelmingly common (and perhaps even universal) opinion among such historians is that in Copernicus's system the Sun remains motionless at or near the center of the Universe. While you are perfectly entitled to hold different views, Wikipedia's policies do not allow them to be represented in the content of its articles.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Just have a look at the scheme in the autograph to which I'm referring, and which you ignore. It shows you the center empty. This was well-known already to Kepler. Read his Astronomia Nova, §§ 19-21; his whole theory rests on the idea to put the sun at the center and at rest which Copernicus did not. This was already known to Dijksterhuis (1950). And to Koestler (1959). And to Volker Bialas (2004). And to Martin Carrier (2001). And to Michal Kokolski (2006). And to many others who have studied Copernicus. The words you're quoting mean that, "provided that the sun should be always motionless, whatever seems to be a motion of the sun, could more easily be understood by the motion of the earth". This is not a statement about the real motion or rest of the sun. That the sun cannot really be at rest as it is part of a rotating system is evident, and this was well-known to Copernicus. Read his Book I chapter 5, at the end. "The overwhelming opinion" which you refer to is the opinion of people who have never read Copernicus, but instead have relied on false representations of Copernicus's theory in textbooks and enzyclopaedies, etc. It is time to put and end to such Fake science. Truth does not depend on the opinion of a majority of ignorants. Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2812:CC86:75FF:6F91:39B9 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, I have not ignored the "scheme in the autograph", to one pertinent page of which, unlike you, I have actually given a link. Until now, I have refrained from commenting on the diagram you keep referring to, because it was irrelevant to the points I was addressing. I am, however, certain that the differences between that diagram and the corresponding one in the first edition of De Revolutionibus are completely inconsequential, and are therefore incapable of carrying the significance you're trying to attach to them.
• In your mistranslation of Copernicus's Latin you have distorted his meaning by interpolating extraneous and unnecessary words which simply do not exist in the original.
• I have, in fact, already read Book I, Chapter 5 of De Revolutionibus numerous times to the very end, thank you very much. I am again absolutely certain that its ending, which you have very cleary misunderstood, does not say what you think it does. The final sentence reads

Multi vero existimaverunt Geometrica ratione demonstrari posse, terram esse in medio mundi, & ad immensitatem coeli instar puncti, centri vicem obtinere, ac eam ob causam immobilem esse, quod moto universo centrum maneat immotum, & quae proxima sunt centro tardissime serantur.

Charles Glenn Wallis's translation: Many however have believed that they could show by geometrical reasoning that the Earth is in the middle of the world; that it has the proportionality of a point in relation to the immensity of the heavens, occupies the central position, and for this reason is immovable, because, when the universe moves, the center remains unmoved and the things which are closest to the center are moved most slowly.

Edward Rosen's translation: But many have thought it possible to prove by geometrical reasoning that the earth is in the middle of the universe; that being like a point in relation to the immense heavens, it serves as their center; and that it is motionless because, when the universe moves, the center remains unmoved, and the things newest to the center are carried most slowly.

Alistair M. Duncan's translation: Many thought that it could be demonstrated by geometrical reasoning that the Earth is in the middle of the universe, being no more than a point compared with the immensity of the heavens, occupies the central position, and that it is immovable, because its centre remains unmoved, and the what is nearest to the center moves most slowly.

It is patently obvious from both the original Latin, if you can read it, and from the common meaning of all three translations, that Copernicus is not here stating his own beliefs about the motion of anything, let alone that of the Sun, which isn't mentioned anywhere. All he is doing is stating the reasons given by the many who "have thought it possible to prove ... that the earth is in the middle of the universe" for believing that they have done so. It's clear from what he says elsewhere—especially where he explicitly attributes motion to the Earth and therefore denies that it remains motionless in the middle of the universe—that he himself doesn't find those reasons convincing.

• The historians of science whose scholarship you have so ludicrously impugned by claiming they "have never read Copernicus" include Edward Rosen, who has produced a well-regarded translation of De Revolutionibus, Owen Gingerich, who has tracked down most of the surviving copies of the first and second editions of De Revolutionibus and examined the annotations added to many of them in some detail, and Otto Neugebauer and Noel Swerdlow, who have collaborated on a monumental two-volume work on the mathematical astronomy in De Revolutionibus.
• Since you quite clearly misunderstand Copernicus's theory, I expect you have misunderstood the references you have cited as well. The point which Kepler placed at the Sun but Copernicus did not, was the intersection of the planets' orbital planes. For Copernicus this was the centre of the Earth's orbit, but not the centre of the orbit of any other planet. For Kepler, it wasn't in the centre of any planet's orbit, because the planets' orbits in his system are elliptical, and the Sun lies at one of their orbits' foci, not at their centres.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose to concentrate on my criticism of the article. Once again: In Copernicus's system the Sun is not the midpoint of the revolutions, and not the center of the universe. Both assertions contradict (1) the Commentariolus, tertia petitio; (2) the autograph, Book I, chapter 10; (3) the scheme of the autograph, where the center is "empty", so that Arthur Koestler (1959) rightly called it a "vacuocentric system". That Rosen's translations of these Latin phrases is mistaken is generally agreed, for example even by Noel Swerdlow, and is evident, by the way, to everybody who reads Latin. What you are saying about Kepler again rests on a mistranslation of the Latin. "Concurrere" does not mean "intersect" but "come together", or "coincide" (just think of the English "concur"). Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2899:DD6F:3B63:B881:6F8C (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ed Dellian wrote: "In Copernicus's system the Sun is not the midpoint of the revolutions, ..."

I have no quarrel with this, but I'm not aware of anything in the article which says or implies it. If there is, it will need to be rewritten, but you will have to point out the specific text where it says so, and possibly convince a consensus of editors that it really means what you think it does.

• Ed Dellian wrote: "In Copernicus's system the Sun is ... not the center of the universe."

That depends on:

1. what is meant by the term "center of the universe" by the person using it;
2. whether you're talking about the system Copernicus presented in the Commentariolus or the one presented in De Revolutionibus, which differ in one crucial particular; and
3. what Copernicus meant by the term "centrum mundi", which is what typically gets translated as either "center of the universe" or "center of the world".

The term "centre of the universe" is ambiguous, and has been used with at least three different senses by eminent scholars (see quotations below), and eminent scholars also disagree on what Copernicus meant by "centrum mundi". Edward Rosen, for instance, defined "center of the universe" to mean the geometrical centre of the sphere of fixed stars, and was adamant that this is where Copernicus placed the Sun, thus also implying that it's what he meant by "centrum mundi". Noel Swerdlow and Otto Neugebauer, on the other hand, insist that "center of the world" to Copernicus meant "a point, or the point, that does not move", and argue that this is where he believed the Sun to be, although he was aware he lacked convincing evidence for putting it there. While there may well be good grounds for suspecting that Copernicus might have regarded this point as coincident with the one defined as "center of the universe" by Rosen, it is certainly not logically necessary.

Arthur Koestler apparently believed that "centrum mundi" to Copernicus meant the centre of the Earth's orbit. While this might have been possible for the system presented in the Commentariolus, it's a completely untenable proposition for that presented in De Revolutionibus, and I know of no expert on the latter who subscribes to it. The difference is that in the Commentariolus Copernicus doesn't explicitly assign any motion to either the Sun or the centre of the Earth's orbit, and strongly implies that they're both stationary, whereas in Book III of De Revolutionibus, he explicitly makes the centre of the Earth's orbit revolve slowly around a motionless Sun, and it's hardly likely that he would have taken a moving point to be what he meant by "centrum mundi".

A third meaning of "centre of the universe" (or fourth, if you take Koestler's apparently proposed definition seriously) is one in which the word "centre" has the imprecise meaning I mentioned above—i.e. a somewhat vaguely defined [point or] region of limited extent somewhere near the centroid of a larger circumscribing region. It seems likely to me that, with the notable exceptions of Rosen, Swerdlow and Neugebauer, this is what most of the authors of the following quotations are using it to mean.

• Gingerich, Owen (2004), The book nobody read, London: William Heinemann, ISBN 0 434 01315 3
        p.2: "Instead, he [i.e. Copernicus] proposed that the Sun was immovable in the middle of the universe." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Caspar, Max (1993), Kepler, New York: Dover
        p.61 (in reference to "Copernicus' cosmography"): "The sun was made the center of the universe." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Drake, Stillman (1957), Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, New York: First Anchor Books, ISBN 0-385-09239-3
        p.12: " ... Copernicus ... suggested placing the sun at or near the center of the heavens, ..." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Linton, Christopher (2004), From Eudoxus to Einstein, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-511-21109-6
        p.119: "In this year [i.e. 1543], shortly before his death, Nicholas Copernicus published
           On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, in which the Sun, and not the Earth, lies at
           the centre of the Universe." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953), A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, New York: Dover
        p.377: "It struck him [i.e. Kepler] now that although Copernicus beyond a doubt had placed
           the sun in the centre of the universe, ..." {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Rosen, Edward (1959), Three Copernican Treatises, New York: Dover
        p. 210: "... he [i.e. Copernicus] placed the sun at the center of the universe, not of the solar system;" {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Swerdlow, Noel Mark; Neugebauer, Otto Eduard (1984), Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus: In Two Parts, New York: Springer Verlag, ISBN 978-1-4613-8264-5
        p.160–1: "By "center of the world" Copernicus means a point, or the point, that does not move,
           , ... , and the question is therefore whether the sun or the center of the earth's eccentric, the
           true sun or the mean sun, occupies this position. This is not an easy question to answer. ...
           Nevertheless, although Copernicus cannot resolve the question, there is no doubt what he
           considers the correct answer. In V,4,16,23 ... he assumes that it [i.e. a diminution in the
           eccentricities of Mars's and Venus's orbits] is caused by the center of the earth's eccentric
           approaching the centres of their eccentrics, "the sun in the intervening time remaining
           immovable" ... ." [and therefore in the centre of the world, according to Swerdlow and
           Neugebauer's definition]. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

• Ed Dellian wrote: "Both assertions contradict (1) the Commentariolus, tertia petitio; (2) the autograph, Book I, chapter 10; (3) the scheme of the autograph, where the center is "empty""

No, it is merely your limited interpretaton of the second assertion which contradicts your erroneous personal interpretation of the primary sources you cite. Since your personal interpretations are contradicted by multiple reliable sources—a few of which I've quoted above—, and not supported by any others that I'm aware of, Wikipedia's policy on original research prohibits them from being used as a basis for edits to the article.

• Ed Dellian wrote: "That Rosen's translations of these Latin phrases is mistaken is generally agreed, for example even by Noel Swerdlow, and is evident, by the way, to everybody who reads Latin."

• Point 1: Rosen's is not the only English translation that has been published. Wallis's and Duncan's translations of those passages do not differ significantly in meaning from Rosen's, nor from my own readings of the Latin.
• Point 2: Swerdlow's well-known criticisms of Rosen's translation of De Revolutionibus were published in Swerdlow, Noel Mark (March 1981), "On Establishing the Text of "De Revolutionibus"" (PDF), Isis, 72 (1), New York: Springer Verlag {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). No mention of the above-quoted Latin passages appears anywhere in that article of Swerdlow's, let alone a criticism of Rosen's translation of them. All the passages from De Revolutionibus that Swerdlow accuses Rosen of mistranslating are drawn from Book IV. The above-quoted Latin passages are from Book I.

In view of this I find it difficult to believe that Ed Dellian's statement quoted above is anything more than bluff and bluster. If it is not, it should be easy for him to provide three citations to the scholarly literature in which acknowledged experts in the field criticise Rosen's translations of those passages, and provide alternative translations which agree in meaning at least as well as Wallis's, Rosen's and Duncan's do. To dispel my uncharitable suspicions I would be grateful if he could do so.

• Ed Dellian wrote: "What you are saying about Kepler again rests on a mistranslation of the Latin. "Concurrere" does not mean "intersect" but "come together", or "coincide" (just think of the English "concur"). "

What I said about Kepler has nothing whatever to do with any translation of "concurrere", let alone a mistranslation of it. It is nothing more than an almost trivial conclusion from a few indisputable facts and the laws of elementary plane geometry. The indisputable facts are:

• In Kepler's system, the planet's orbits are ellipses, one of whose foci is located at the centre of the Sun. This is just Kepler's first law;
• An ellipse is a planar figure whose foci both lie on its major axis, and hence in the same plane as the ellipse itself;
• The celestial longitudes of the non-terrestrial planets' orbital nodes are all different (and have remained so from long before the time of Kepler).

It follows from the first two facts that the Sun lies in the orbital plane of every planet, and hence in the intersection of all those orbital planes. It follows from the third that the lines of nodes of any two non-terrestrial planets [i.e. the intersections of their orbital planes with that of the Earth] cannot be the same, and therefore that they intersect in a single point, which cannot be anything other than the centre of the Sun. It then follows that the intersection of all the orbital planes of the planets comprises a single point, which again cannot be anything other than the centre of the Sun.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The stuff about the various different interpretations of "centre" is interesting, and not in the article at present. Could you put a condensed version in? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been considering adding a footnote to the statement that Copernicus "placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe", currently in the lead, with some sort of qualification and clarification along those lines. The problem is in simultaneously achieving the necessary brevity and clarity, which I have not yet succeeded in doing, although I think it probably is achievable.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(convenience break)

As I understand it, Copernicus based on his observations correctly determined the orbital epicenters for the planets, which in the case of Jupiter lies outside the sun. We need a source that explains this. We also need to ensure that the article does not contradict itself. TFD (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

From a web search, I gather that the term "orbital epicenter" is occasionally used (at least on the web) as a synonym for "barycenter", and that would tally with your statement that for Jupiter's orbit it lies outside the Sun. I haven't previously come across any use of this term in celestial mechanics, but assuming I've understood it correctly, then it's certainly not true that Copernicus determined any of the planets' orbital epicentres. It was not until Newton's mechanics and theory of universal gravitation was used to explain Kepler's laws (correcting the first of them in the process) that the barycentre, rather than the Sun itself, was recognised as being the occupant of one of the foci of a planet's orbit.

It should be possible to find just about any technical detail of Copenicus's astronomy in Swerdlow and Neugebauer's very comprehensive treatise, Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus: In Two Parts, which I have cited above. One thing that needs to be kept in mind when using this book, however, is that certain of its conclusions have probably been influenced by its authors' positions on a controversial issue about which, as far as I know, experts in the field have yet to reach agreement. The issue in question is whether Copernicus believed in the reality of the heavenly spheres that were supposed to carry the planets around in their orbits. Swerdlow and Neugebauer insisted that he did, in opposition to Edward Rosen, who insisted that he never took a firm stance one way or the other, either for or against their reality.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@David_J_Wilson: I propose once more to have a look at the scheme in the autograph drawn by Copernicus's hand. Here you can see the sun orbiting the empty centre of the system on the innermost circle, much in the sense of old Philolaos to whom Copernicus refers explicitly, and much more than to Aristarch! Just count the number of the circular orbits in this scheme, and you will see that the innermost orbit must belong to the sun. It is not only in this respect that the scheme of the autograph differs substantially from the picture in "De revolutionibus", where the sun (symbolized) is clearly at the very centre, and the earth is present as a point, and there is also a tiny moon (earth and moon not drawn in the scheme of the autograph!). Regard the places and the reading of the captions! Note that the scheme of "De revol." stems from a woodcut produced in Nuremberg by an unknown artist. It is not Copernicus's scheme! Only the very different scheme in the autograph is authentic! And it corroborates my view. Note that none of the experts you're quoting has ever lost a word on the difference between the said schemes, let alone that they had ever explained it! And this is certainly the main reason of their disgreement on so simple as important a central point of Copernicus's cosmology! Ed Dellian2003:D2:9724:2892:E5CD:6765:8FD3:31FB (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ed Dellian wrote: "Note that none of the experts you're quoting has ever lost a word on the difference between the said schemes, ... "

• Since the difference between the diagrams is inconsequential, as I have already pointed out above, it would not be surprising if no expert had ever commented on it, although I'm not prepared to accept this as an established fact merely because you say so.
• The fact that you have been unable to supply a citation to any expert commentary on the difference between the diagrams means that your unorthodox interpretation of the one in the autograph manuscript cannot be used as a basis for making edits to the article.
• On pp.34–5 of Copernicus: A Very Short Introduction, and pp.36–8 of God's Planet, Owen Gingerich explains what Copernicus's diagrams represent. Although the photograph on p.35 of the first book is of one in a printed edition, Gingerich's explanation is the same in both cases, and in God's Planet he is clearly talking about the one in the autograph manuscript.

The key point is that the circles in the diagrams, with the exceptions of the outermost one in both diagrams, and the one denoting the Earth's orbital path in the printed edition, do not denote the paths of the planets, as you have misinterpreted them, but the boundaries of the planets' orbs—i.e. the spherical shells which supposedly carry them and their epicycles around the Sun (Gingerich calls them "zones" in the cited references). Thus, the innermost circle doesn't represent an orbit of anything, let alone of the Sun; it represents the inner boundary of the orb of Mercury. The next circle outwards represents the outer boundary of Mercury's orb and the inner boundary of Venus's, and so on outward to the spherical shell containing the fixed stars. The outermost circle represents the outer boundary of the spherical shell of fixed stars and of the universe.

The differences between the diagram in the printed edition and the one in the autograph are as follows:

• A circle representing the Earth's orbital path has been added in the middle of the annulus representing its orb. A dot labelled "Terra" has been put on this circle to represent the Earth. A circle labelled with a crescent has been drawn around this dot to represent the outer surface of the Moon's sphere.
• A small circle to represent the Sun has been added to the middle of the diagram. Since none of the planets are represented by any form of symbol in the diagram in the autograph, the absence of one for the Sun has no significance whatever.
• The text labelling the annuli representing the orbs of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, and the sphere of fixed stars has been moved from just below their outer boundaries to just above them.

As I said above, these differences are completely inconsequential.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The term orbital epicenter is not a synonym for barycenter since it does not necessarily imply a center of mass. Copernicus observed that Jupiter orbited a point outside the sun without knowing that that point was the center of mass of the two bodies or that the relative mass determined the orbital epicenter. TFD (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this. You appear to be saying that a point which Copernicus observed Jupiter to be orbiting ultimately turned out to be at the centre of mass of it and the Sun (i.e. at their barycentre) even though Copernicus was not aware of that fact. Assuming I've understood you correctly, then I'm certain your statement is incorrect. In Copernicus's system the Sun doesn't lie in the orbital plane of any planet except the Earth. Therefore the Sun and Jupiter's centre of mass won't lie in Jupiter's orbital plane either, so Jupiter couldn't be orbiting it.

The orbits of all the outer planets, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, in Copernicus's system, are epitrochoids (although generated by an epicycle revolving around the circumference of a circle, rather than by a circle rolling around the outside of another), whose planes all pass through the center of the Earth's orbit, which is not at the Sun. As far as I can tell there's no unique point that one would naturally take to be the center of such an orbit. It's centroid, the centre of its line of apses, or the centre of the circle around which the epicycle revolves are all possible candidates, but they're also three different points. All of them lie well outside the surface of the Sun, so any one of them might be the "orbital epicentre" you're referring to (given that I've yet to see a precise definition that would allow me to rule out any of those possibilities) . If that's the case, though, Jupiter wouldn't be unique in having its (Copernican) orbital epicentre outside the Sun, since all the planets except possibly the Earth would do so as well.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me that you may be confusing Copernicus with Kepler. It was Kepler who discovered that a planet's orbit was much closer to an ellipse with the Sun near one of its foci than to the epitrochoids of Copernicus. Kepler didn't recognise that the focus was actually the centre of mass of the planet and the Sun, and he placed the Sun itself there instead. But although his models for the planets' orbits were a huge improvement over Copernicus's, he was still not able to recognise that the relevant focus of Jupiter's (or any other planet's) orbit was some distance from the Sun's centre, rather than right at it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@ David Wilson. What kind of a discussion is this? In order to understand whereabout the planets and Sun really move, the mechanics of the manybody system might help (see Isaac Newton's Principia, Book I, Third law of motion, Corollary IV to the laws, Sect. XI (Introduction), and Book III Prop. XII). In order to understand whereabout the planets move in Copernicus's system, it might help to read Copernicus. For a change I here refer to "De revolutionibus" Book III chapter 15-20. Accordingly, in Copernicus's system the Sun moves. Therefore, she is not the midpoint of the revolutions (you correctly see that Kepler was mistaken), and not the centre of the universe. If you nevertheless want to take her for the centre of revolutions, you will learn that in this case the circular orbits must degenerate into ellipses, the more the greater the eccentricity (See Isaac Newton, Principia, Prop. X and XI). This is what Kepler had to learn 400 years ago. Kepler's theory was not "a huge improvement over Copernicus's", but a triviality, namely the dependency of the orbit on the chosen reference point. Note by the way that Copernicus and many of the old astronomers already knew about this fact, but ignored it, because they were looking not for the apparent, but for the really true circular orbits and their true centre at rest. Ed Dellian2003:D2:9725:3926:7157:C9DA:C7E4:F860 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ed Dellian wrote: "For a change I here refer to "De revolutionibus" Book III chapter 15-20. Accordingly, in Copernicus's system the Sun moves."

• No, those Chapters are devoted to Copernicus's explanation of how irregularites in the apparent motion of the Sun can be explained by assigning appropriate motion to the Earth in its orbit around the Sun's position in the middle of the universe ("Sole medium mundi tenente")—just as the opening lines of Chapter 15 quite clearly state.

Ed Dellian asks: "What kind of a discussion is this?"

• Well, it has now degenerated into one which is off-topic for this talk page, and in continuing which beyond this reply I see very little point. I have given citations above to eight scholarly sources, written by acknowledged experts in the field, every one of which contradicts one or more of the erroneous assertions you keep repeating here without providing a skerrick of credible evidence to support them. Swerdlow and Neugebauer's book, in particular, contains a very comprehensive account of just about every technical detail of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus. Dreyer's A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler and Linton's From Eudoxus to Einstein From Eudoxus to Einstein give more succinct, but still quite informative accounts. A careful reading of any of these books, in conjunction with any good translation of De Revolutionibus, should convince any competent reader that the Sun is completely motionless in Copernicus's system.
  

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Wilson: You're right; in Chapter 15 Copernicus begins with the "apparent" motion of the Sun. But you pick just what you like, while ignoring the rest. Copernicus from Chapter 18 on distinguishes between "motus apparentis" and "motus aequalis" as between the "apparent" and the "real and true" motion of the Sun. So it is true: Copernicus knows that the Sun really moves, as it was already known to Philolaos, to whom Copernicus refers, and as it also is the true reality (cf. Isaac Newton, Principia, Book III, Prop. XII)! - As to the many books you're referring to, it is evident for the reader that Arthur Koestler was right when he made a laughing stock of all the "experts" who by their statements demonstrate that they haven't read Copernicus. Which to do requires not to rely on "any good translation of De revolutionibus" (tradutore traditore, say the Italian), but study Copernicus himself, that is, in his Latin. Moreover, this is not to rely on the printed "De revolutionibus", which is a heavily corrupted version of Copernicus's autograph! Note that the printer never saw the autograph! The corruption is evident for him who unambiguously compares the autograph and the printed book. The schemes I've referred to make the main difference easily visible: In open contradiction to the scheme of the autograph, in the printed version the Sun is placed at the centre, and at rest. Writes Osiander in his forword written with "perfidy, turpitude and deception" (so the late Copernicus's friend Tiedeman Giese characterized it), already in the opening phrase: "Non dubito quin eruditi quidam, vulgata iam de novitate hypotheseon huius operi fama, quod terram mobilem, Solem vero in medio universi immobilem constituit, vehementer sint offensi ...". This was the idea of the traitor Osiander: to make the theory - and the scheme! - appear corresponding with the reigning Aristotelian theory of motion that requires a "central material body at rest" in the centre of revolutions. Here began what modern "experts" ignorantly have brought to an end for the time being: make of the Platonist Copernicus, the harbinger of a new world, a "last representative" of Aristotelian scholastic. So: What is truth?? Ed Dellian2003:D2:9725:3926:7157:C9DA:C7E4:F860 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

real motion, true motion = motus verus ≠ motus aequalis

motus inaequalis = irregular motion, uneven motion

motus aequalis = regular motion, uniform motion, mean motion ≠ true motion or real motion

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Worthless Scholastic nit-picking. Note when astronomers before Kepler looked for circular motions, this was because of the reality and truth of this kind of recurring motion. "Recurrence" of the heavenly bodies had been observed for long. It was known from experience since the time when somebody invented the wheel, that recurring bodies (revolving about a center) must obey circular paths with "equal" motion (motus aequalis) so long as nothing disturbes their revolution. So equal circular motion, or "motus aequalis", is true circular motion, of course. Therefore, the very fact that the revolutions of planets and sun about the earth are not circular demonstrates that the earth cannot be the center, and the observable motion of planets and sun about the earth is "motus inaequalis", that is, unequal in speed, and consequently only "apparent" motion. Read Copernicus, Book I, chapter 5 for this. Ed Dellian2003:D2:9725:3965:E4D9:6C71:D476:A030 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jerzy Sikorski?

The article Jerzy Sikorski could use some attention from editors familiar with the Copernicus and the work of historians studying him. I have started trying to clean it up, but there is a lot of material there, some of which might benefit from review by someone with more expertise than I. The article appears to have been written by an editor with a conflict of interest (not Sikorski himself, I suspect, but a colleague). I just deleted an entire section, which mostly departed from talking about Sikorski's work into a diatribe about the fact that Copernicus was Polish, complete with pages of footnote-comments that didn't mention the topic of the article at all. --Srleffler (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A recent text about Kopernik

https://culture.pl/en/article/copernicus-revelations-about-the-renaissance-man Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC) it seems there is no clear line here and that Kopernik was a bit of this and a bit of that, a person fusing Polish and German influences, much like many people from this time and place in history.Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

he spoke polish???? he even could not write his family name in polish

stop spreading polish occupants lies...poles came from crakow and occupied Torun and Danzing at the same time crusaders came, by the way invited by polish parasites...in 1150 first polish missionaries arived into these two cities and Prussians (Lithuanians) living in Torun and Danzing could not understand a word in polish the language of missionaries and all were pagans of Lithuanian religion and language.

written by 82.140.180.76, should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That statement contains unsupported (by sources) statements and insults that are legal offenses in some jurisdictions. ASchudak (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Copernicus's Polish spelling

This article's "Languages" section refers to Edward Rosen, "Nicolas Copernicus Thorunensis" (with external link provided) as evidence for Copernicus's poor fluency in the Polish language:

In recording the names of the numerous Polish peasants involved in these Leases, Copernicus "registered the phonetic characteristics of the Polish language correctly."1 Yet in the same entry Copernicus wrote both Czepan and Zcepan2. This transposition of the first two letters indicates that he was trying to reproduce phonetically the sounds he heard, and provides no basis for the conclusion that he "not only knew the Polish language but spoke it fluently enough to be able to use it in his dealings with Polish peasants"3.

Given that Copernicus's own name is found in varied spellings (and that Shakespeare, some decades later, seems not to have written his own surname the same way twice), I cannot see how the above can be taken as clear evidence of Copernicus's alleged poor fluency in the Polish language.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Kingdom was multinational, multireligious. King Batory was Hungarian and didn't probably speak Polish. Latin was the official language. Lithuanians spoke mostly Ruthenian. My ancestors spoke probably Lithuanian, than Ruthenian. Who cared which language did Kopernik speak? If a cat catches mice, I don't care if it is green.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But why uncritically cite Rosen's naive text on this question?

Nihil novi (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the text currently in the article comes from reading more into Rosen's words than what he actually says or implies. As I understand it, Rosen's assertion is merely that Copernicus's spelling of Polish names provide "no basis" for Biskup's conclusion that the former "not only knew the Polish language but spoke it fluently enough to be able to use it in his dealings with Polish peasants". I don't see how this can be reasonably taken as an outright denial of Copernicus's supposed fluency. Similarly, when Rosen writes:

"He [Copernicus] wrote the Polish names as well as could be done by an intelligent and conscientious administrator essentially unfamiliar with that language."

I do not take him to be implying that Copernicus was such an administrator, merely that his being one would be consistent with his spelling Polish names in the way he did.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Przygórze

Some German academicians believed that the family came from Przygórze.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

A source or link for that claim would be helpful (or at least the name of one of the academians) ASchudak (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

de:Przygórze Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ThanksASchudak (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 100 zlotych polskich sprzed denominacji w 1995 roku.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

It should says he is Polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.146.148 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There were no nationalities (citizenships of a nation-state) back in those days. He was an ethnic German subject to the Polish king.--MacX85 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cultural identity - as in "Polish" or "German" - was something that most contemporaries were very much aware of, and this very much reflects in the "natio" of the Universities. Yet, in the case of Copernicus a final edict eludes, as there is evidence of both German and Polish cultural and ethnic background. The dominance of German evidence here (as in joining he German natio in Bologna) is balanced by the fact that he was a subject of the Polish king, and via Thorn and later Warmia thus a citizen of Poland. Those who say that the case is clear are either uniformed or lie - hopefully the former. Lets just accept that there are some cases that remain unclear and defy a final verdict, and enjoy a common heritage that should connect Poland and Germany, not divide them. ASchudak (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Slavonic and Teutonic languages are distant relatives, but this was over-looked at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254thls56 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See Indo-European languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254thls56 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are 7 archives on the subject of Copernicus's nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254thls56 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes he is definitely Polish. The evidence that clears any misunderstandings is the letter he sent to Polish king during Prussian (Teutonic) rebellion in which he devoted himself to protect Polish Kingdom against German insurgents. This whole page about Copernicus is therefore biased by German propaganda. (the_ktt)

That doesn't mean anything. He just happened to prefer one ruler over the other. The Teutonic Order was first and foremost a religious institution rather than the epitome of Germanness.--MacX85 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Royal Prussia, of which Copernicus was a citizen, had chosen to be subject to the Polish king not because the citizens were Polish ethnically or culturally (sure, some were), but to be free from the rule of the Teutonic order. Judged against this background, Copernicus being Polish citizen and writing to the Polish king does not imply much for his cultural and linguistic belonging to Poland --Stan Tincon (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the nationality section or description is adequate (Renaissance-era), however, it would be convenient to modify it to "a Renaissance-era mathematician and astronomer from Poland, who formulated a model...etc." It is fully appropriate as it does not even insinuate or suggest nationality (or descent) but only the place where he was born, lived and worked. Oliszydlowski, 17:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is no one to discuss or no one against it I am just going to imply it. Oliszydlowski, 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Can it be that the year is off in your timestamp? Apart from that, please do not open that can again. Copernicus was "born, lived and worked" mainly in Royal Prussia, which was part of Poland and has a German heritage. Specifically adding Poland in the first sentence however would be akin to introducing Marie Skłodowska with her being born in Russia and working in France. All that must be said is already on the page, if not in the first sentence. Please just let it be as it is...ASchudak (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

German-sided article

It's disturbing to see how german sided this article is. First of all, "Polish" reference in his name pronunciation is blue-underlined so it blends with other blue-underlined text before, making it realy hard to see that there is word "Polish". Meanwhile, two words further there is a word "German" and is not underlined/referenced at all and is seen very easily, making it easy for reader to make an impression that Copernicus was "German".

Thats because there is an active links to the "polish language" under that "polish". You can either remove that link, or add a link below "german" leading to "german language". There is certainly no purpose in this difference, and nobody will object if you change either ASchudak (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, instead of writing that he was born and died in Kingdom of Poland and later specife that in region of "Royal Prussia" (actually to be exact he was born in region called Warmia) you do opposite making an impression that first he was from Royal Prussia and then from Poland.

You just MAY have noticed that there is a debate out there active for well over 200 years wether Copernicus is German or Polish. There are half a dozen archive pages on that debate here, so PLEASE if you want to change something, wade through them and only act if you have something new that was NOT mentioned repeatedly on these pages. That said, the consensus is that Copernicus came from Royal Prussia - an area that has joined the kingdom of Poland a mere 7 years before Copernicus birth, and that had previously a very strong cultural German heritage (at least in the cities). The area had autonomy at the time of Copernicus, and eg Warmia had almost come to blows with the Polish king over the question of investitur just a decade before. Calling these areas just "Polish" or "German" oversimplifies their mixed history and heritage and would imply the one or other nationality, so calling it "Royal Prussia" AND mentioning that it was part of the kingdom of Poland is the compromise. ASchudak (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Lastly, you write that he was born in Thorn not Toruń. Underlining every detail you could find to make it seem that he was actually from Germany not Poland.

The information box say Torun (Thorn). This is in accordance with the Gdansk/Danzig vote taken some years before that regulates the naming of areas and cities in the territories with common German and Polish heritage. During the time of Polish soveraignity the Polish name comes first, followed by the German in brackets. The first mention of his birthtown in the text was indeed Thorn, which I changed to the correct format. Thanks for that hint.ASchudak (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Just realized that the actual Danzig-vote is "Danzig (Gdansk") for this era. Not entirely sure wether that transfers to Thorn (Torun), but as far as I am concerned it can remain with the Polish version first. I will not change the text (or infobox) back. ASchudak (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

These were 3 times that you first mention Copernicus nationality and every time you do this it is in favor of promoting a belief that he was german. Very sad, wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.179.110.33 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Apart from that Thorn-lapsus there is nothing that promotes "German" - it just tries to stay on neutral territory. Do not be paranoid, and please respect that the POV from others differs from yours. NOT emphasizing the Polish aspect is not the same as being "German sided".

BTW: Please sign in for your comments - these debates tend to be more civilized when participants are logged in ASchudak (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective answer, dear German — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.179.110.33 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

Please write instead of 'was a Renaissance-era mathematician and astronomer' the correct sentence 'was a Renaissance-era Polish mathematician and astronomer'. The reason for this request is to state the fact that this astronomer is from Poland, was born on Polish soil, and it is misleading for people who read only the first paragraph of the Wikipedia not to state that he was from Poland. Moreover, after conducting small research, under every other famous figure their nationality is stated straight away (i.e. Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler etc), apart from Copernicus. Please amend. 83.235.180.40 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You can have a look at the previous discussions on this: Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality. There isn't a consensus for adding it in. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The information you want is given in the introduction, third para: "Copernicus was born and died in Royal Prussia, a region that had been part of the Kingdom of Poland since 1466". The general consensus is that neither "Polish" nor "German" alone would fit sufficiently enough to be justified. While you correctly state that he was born and lived (mainly) in areas part of the Kingdom of Poland, these areas do have a strong German heritage and one of the few hard facts we do have on his nationality is that he joined the "German natio" in Bologna, so there ARE other aspects to consider beside the allegiation of his birth- and living place. Naming him "German-Polish" or "Polish-German" would fit better to our modern standards, but sound somehow weird for the contemporary mindset. "Prussian" probably fits best, but (due to later developments of Prussia) did not find a consensuse here, too. So let us just collect the facts of his life and leave this one controversial aspect open in the introduction para. Apart from that, any contribution here greatly benefits from registering and login, not using just your IP ASchudak (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Heavenly Spheres or Celestial Spheres?

The translation of his key work is written as Celestial Spheres, but the article that links to says Heavenly Spheres. Which is it? LastDodo (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

TTTomekkkkk (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)The want to change the profile picture to this (Astronomer Copernicus, or Conversations with God.jpg)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The current portrait is better, I think, as it shows only his face. If you disagree, please see if there is a consensus to change it. aboideau^talk 19:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Name

Just a detail: the first occurrence of the Koppernigk spelling could use a link to the German article about silent consonants used for marking vowel length, like so: Koppernigk. The spelling might look highly idiosyncratic, especially to non-Germans, but it actually makes plenty of sense when put in context. 89.64.26.237 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Link to polymath

Please change
A [[Polyglot (person)|polyglot]] and polymath
to
A [[Polyglot (person)|polyglot]] and [[Polymath|polymath]]

Zanshin13 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Polymath is already linked in the first sentence of the lead and our manual of style cautions against overlinking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Observations

There should be a discussion of the errors in the observations made by Copernicus. One of his observations involved an error of about 2 degrees of arc. This is big for the unaided eye. One of his observations of Mars was in error by about 2 degrees. This is about 120 times the reasonable minimum for those made with the unaided eye, which is about 1 minute of arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py1905py (talk • contribs) 11:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Tycho Brahe, where there is a discussion of Tycho's errors, made with the unaided eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.4.50.239 (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Tycho_Brahe#Tycho's_observational_astronomy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.4.151.141 (talk • contribs)

Copernicus made only a few observations, a dozen or two, and it would take very little time to study them.

See "Life of Copernicus", by Pierre Gassendi and Oliver Thill, on page 134. This mentions 16 observations made by Copernicus, with estimates of his errors. I don't know if Copernicus made any others, or how numerous any were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.179.234 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

See Studia Copernicana 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.9.77 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Einstein

Einstein was a successor of Copernicus. He should be mentioned. It is not clear why some successors are mentioned and not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCD5:D01:D55C:98AC:B618:BDE4 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Question of Independent Formulation

This article says he likely formulated his theory independently of Aristarchus. Based both on footnote c in this article, and based on other Wikipedia articles, cited below, I suspect a more nuanced description may be appropriate.

Footnote c says: The Greek mathematician and astronomer Aristarchus of Samos proposed such a system during the third century BCE. (Dreyer 1953, pp. 135–48). Copernicus was aware of Aristarchus' heliocentric theory and cited him in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), though he removed the reference from his final published manuscript.

Copernican heliocentrism: Copernicus was aware that the ancient Greek Aristarchus had already proposed a heliocentric theory, and cited him as a proponent of it in a reference that was deleted before publication; however, there is no evidence that Copernicus had knowledge of, or access to, the specific details of Aristarchus' theory.

Aristarchus of Samos: Nicolaus Copernicus attributed the heliocentric theory to Aristarchus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhurwicz (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Past Life

He was a great person and will always be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagerding (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

Under "Predecessors", the spelling "Btiruji" appears. This seems to be a mistake for "Bitruji". I notice this alot :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:64B2:3B01:EC48:C9C3:AEBA:4756 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Polish

Most if not all biographies in Wikipedia start by saying the person’s nationality. I think it would be nice and correct to add it to the first phrase, “Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish...” etc. 2A01:CB01:203B:C858:F57B:CA1:B541:3250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph on "Nationality" pretty much sums up why there is no "Polish", "German" or "Prussian" in the header line. If you have anything NEW to add on his nationality that is not covered in the archive pages then bring it on here and lets discuss wether it justifies a change. Otherwise please leave this introduction as it stands. Thanks! ASchudak (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Change: At the instance of [[Roger Boscovich]], 
To:     At the insistence of [[Roger Boscovich]], 

Wgwwgw (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

And since  Reverted by Nihil novi. I have to admit, this usage for "instance" was a new one for me. And after checking a few dictionaries, it does seem to be attested, but it looks like the general consensus among them is that this is an obsolete usage. If we've got a much more ordinary word to place here instead, we should avoid the obscure one. Ideally I'd just check the sources here, but I can't seem to find them. Soooo, I think just a plain "request" would be fine here unless someone with access to the sources thinks there's a better option. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed to me unlikely that Roger Boscovich, though a Jesuit, would have been in a position to "insist" on anything with the Vatican. Even "request" seems to me a little presumptuous for someone in his position. That is why I thought that "[his] instance" is suitably opaque for the situation. None of my 4 English dictionaries, published in 1960, 1967, 1985, and 2004, describe this sense of "instance" as obsolete, archaic, or anything similar. (Some of the word's other senses are marked as "obsolete" or "archaic".)

Nihil novi (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Series of assertions by Dava

Referring to Copernicus in about 1510, Dava says, "The only work by Aristarchus known to Copernicus -a treatise called On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon - made no mention of the heliocentric plan." Dava gives no reason for supposing that Copernicus knew about Aristarchus's treatise at all. It seems that Aristarchus was not mentioned in the Commentariolus. Dava, referring to Copernicus in 1543, says, "he still knew nothing of the earth-moving plan of Aristarchus, which had not yet been reported to Latin audiences". Dava denies or has over-looked the fact that Copernicus mentioned Aristarchus in the long-hand version of the "Revolutions" but not in the printed version. Dava has a conflict of interest and is a popular writer. Copernicus knew Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Giorgio Valla produced the earliest Latin translation of Aristarchus's "Sizes and Distances" in 1488. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What's your source for the fact that Copernicus mentioned Aristarchus in the long-hand version of the "Revolutions" but not in the printed version, which appears to be crucial to your argument? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

See adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985 JHA .... 16 ... 37 G . See Owen Gingerich, Did Copernicus Owe a Debt to Aristarchus?, Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol.16, No1/FEB, page 37, 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985JHA....16...37G . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I don't think that supports your position; it certainly doesn't justify the level of scorn you've used. For a start, recall Betteridge's law of headlines. Then, look near the end of p39: "not a shred of evidence that..." William M. Connolley (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See http://demokritos.org/Aristarchus%20and%20Copernicus-Petrakis.htm .

Please learn how to sign your posts. Not doing so is impolite. Second... you're just going around looking for text to support your idea. You put up G, which is actually a decent quality ref, but as soon as I point out it says the opposite of what you want, you jump to something else. Which certainly isn't a quality ref; indeed it is comically bad William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole of Gingerich's sentence is "But there is not a shred of evidence that Copernicus knew anything about Aristarchus as a heliocentrist except for the single rather cryptic passage on eclipses in the Opinions of the Philosophers." Note that Gingerich mentioned an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Gingerich mentions Brachvogel, who speaks of a non-existent thread and unspecified observations. Gingerich agrees that Brachvogel is philosophical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterHh45hh45 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The quote that is written in the article "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses" is presumed to be by Copernicus, but how could he be writing this if the quote contest the terms 'he' and 'himself' rather than 'I' and 'myself'. This is mysterious to the extent that the quote might not be related to Copernicus writing, thus the quote should be introduced differently or removed {{|:8004:1680:616:45ad:a4b2:a1ff:59c5}}

See the section entitled "Heliocentrism". See the second paragraph. The passage "To which..." is in inverted commas, implying that it is a quotation from Copernicus. Copernicus might have used the first person, such as "I" and it might have been changed to the third person by Dobrycki and Haydukiewicz.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

206.176.109.182 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 This is dumb stuff to look at make it more intresting

 Not done: Please use requests only when proposing constructive changes to an article. With specific changes mentioned in the form "please change X to Y". Terasail^[✉] 17:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

In accordance with Help:IPA/Polish, not listing [mʲ], the IPA transcription of his first name should be changed from [mʲiˈkɔwaj] to [miˈkɔwaj]. 151.36.86.125 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — TGHL ↗ (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Copernicus' knowledge on Aristarchus' of Samos theory

The pages of Nicolaus Copernicus and Aristarchus of Samos provide slightly contradicting information on Copernicus' knowledge on Aristarchus' of Samos theory. Both of these informations appear before table of contents. After noticing this, I put some time in reading the sources to figure out which one is right, or if both are wrong.

Thankfully the #Predecessors part of Copernicus article already covers all I could find in the references (mainly citation[5]), so I don't think I have to quote the references.

I suggest removing citation[d]. The part "He still knew nothing of the Earth-moving plan of Aristarchus, which had not yet been reported to Latin audiences" clearly means that the author was not aware of Copernicus' surviving manuscript that was deleted prior to publication. Which is mentioned in the source[5] and under #Predecessors part of the Copernicus article.

I honestly don't know what to do with the sentence: "In all likelihood, Copernicus developed his model independently of Aristarchus of Samos, an ancient Greek astronomer who had formulated such a model some eighteen centuries earlier." Mentioned in source [5] and under #Predecessors part of the Copernicus article is, that Copernicus knew about Aristarchus' advancements on the heliocentrichypothesis and even considered mentioning it in his "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres". This makes the sentence I mentioned seem like a wrong assumption, that unfortunately appears at the very start of the Copernicus article.

I made the account especially to report this issue and I hope that's the right way to do it! JamJackall (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

JamJackall, Thank you for pointing this issue out. I suggest that per WP:BOLD you now edit the article(s) and fix the errors. I am not an expert in astronomy so I am not sure I fully understand the issue, and I am unsure when another volunteer will see your comment here (and decide to act on it). If you want something done right... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

JamJackall, Sobel's "Earth-moving" quote is unfortunate, being clearly misleading and arguably wrong. It could perhaps just about be argued (dubiously and probably wrongly in my view) that she is not wrong because she implicitly means "Copernicus still knew nothing of the heliocentric nature of Aristarchus's Earth-moving plan", but even then the quote would be misleading and confusing to our readers. And she is not a particularly reliable source. So the quote should be removed. But some thought is needed as to precisely how to replace it (as simply deleting her may leave the impression that it's just Gingerich who thinks Aristarchus's heliocentrism did not influence Copernicus). Meanwhile I've amended the Owen Gingerich footnote to more accurately reflect what he actually says, and my next objective will be to reuse this amended note in the Predecessors section (which is fairly easy to do), and to rephrase the existing text there (which may be a little trickier). As I may not necessarily have time to do all or any of this in the near future, maybe you might like to have a go yourself? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now re-used the amended note in Predecessors, and re-worded the text there to be more accurate (Note: I've had to change efn to refn to get ref name to work; if somebody knows how to get a name to work with efn it would probably be better to go back to efn instead). I probably won't be addressing the above-mentioned Sobel issue anytime soon, but there's nothing to stop others doing so. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally one apparent source of confusion, and one that may have confused Sobel's understnding of 'Earth-moving', is that our current Reliable Sources (at least when I last looked a while ago) seem to have very little understanding of how right Philolaus was from a geocentric perspective. The Earth (meaning the surface we stand on) does move around a central fire (its molten core) once every 24 hours, as does a kind of Counter-Earth except that we call it the antipodes. Philolaus lived in Southern Italy, so fairly near the Etna and Stromboli volcanoes, which presumably helps explain how he knew about the central fire. It might improve this article (and the Philolaus and Counter-Earth ones) if somebody could find Reliable Sources (either online or in some library) that might allow us to say at least some of this. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, some time ago Donald Albury graciously made note conversions that seem to be what you have in mind, to the "Joseph Conrad" article. It that is so, you or someone else might be able to use his "Joseph Conrad" note conversions as a template for the "Copernicus" article.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at it. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be what I'm looking for, as there doesn't seem to be any case there of a footnote being re-used. I could of course change each efn into a refn, but that currently seems like more hassle than it's probably worth (or at least it would be too low on my own list of priorities), and it would also change a,b,c, ... to the arguably less pretty n 1, n 2, n 3, ... It doesn't seem to object to me adding a name field to an efn but I don't know how to reference it, as the normal name reference format seemingly doesn't work. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good, that's now fixed. The problem may have been that few could use it before as the text in Help was partly incomplete and partly somewhat misleading. I'll be discussing how to fix it there. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I' ve now added a contrary view in the Predecessors section (but not the lead, as I feel that would be WP:UNDUE) with the following edit description: contrary view given per requirement to mention all views in Reliable Sources,even tho I'm not sure this is truly reliable, tho it is from Harvard University Press. But I'm not too worried if somebody thinks it's not sufficiently reliable to keep - I only have it because I wanted to keep it to try to minimize the risk of friction at the Aristarchus article as I changed it to the clearly more reliable Gringerich view, so I thought I should also add it here for consistency. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

He didn't place the sun in the middle of the universe. He proposed a heliocentric system, that the planets orbit around the Sun; that Earth is a planet which, besides orbiting the Sun annually, also turns once daily on its own axis; and that very slow changes in the direction of this axis account for the precession of the equinoxes 136.53.9.0 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Article does not say he placed the sun in the centre of the univbers, it actually say he "formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than Earth at its center IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matthew.C.Martin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TaoranC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Txtoon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Please, change
On the title page of De revolutionibus, Rheticus published the name (in the genitive, or possessive, case) as "Nicolai Copernici".
to
On the title page of De revolutionibus, Rheticus published the name (in the genitive, or possessive, case) as "Nicolai Copernici".
That is, replace the explanatory footnote, which is void, by simple wikilink. 109.241.162.167 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done The required changes have been made in this edit. Thank you. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Two items in the subsection "Sources" are corrupted and need to be repaired. Please, change
"volume=XI"
to
"volume=XI"
(remove the link) and also change
"| title = Three Copernican Treatises:The Commentariolus of Copernicus; The Letter against Werner; The Narratio Prima of Rheticus | author=Rosen, Edward (translator)"
to
"| title = Three Copernican Treatises: The Commentariolus of Copernicus; The Letter against Werner; The Narratio Prima of Rheticus | author=Rosen, Edward"
The two urls link to different pages in the same book. The second link is unnecessary, as the reader can find the beginning of a book in "archive.org".
It is the word "translator" that causes the error, but it is unneeded since the original author of the book is unknown (notice a space inserted after colon). 109.241.162.167 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022 (2)

Please, change
"http://www.muzeum.torun.pl/strona-26-copernicus_house.html Copernicus House, District Museum in Toruń"
to
"https://muzeum.torun.pl/en/the-nicolaus-copernicus-house/ Copernicus House, District Museum in Toruń"
(the link is half-dead), and also, in the immediately preceding item, change "Torun" to "Toruń". 109.241.162.167 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Name of father's family

His name "Kopernikus, Copernikus" is a Latin name of Polish origin (at the time many names were Latinized in the Polish world because Latin was a scripted language in the Polish World). It was scholars and officials that have the ending "us". "Koper" or "Koperek" is a Slavic name of a plant that grows everywhere in Poland. Old Polish and Old Slavonic (pungent taste) (etymologically "koprz"). https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/koper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.130 (talk • contribs)

1. Please log in and sign your comments here. Thanks!

2. It is generally assumed that the name goes back to the village Koperniki, from where one of his ancestors moved to Cracow around 1380. Wether that village name now comes from the Polish dill (koper) or the German copper (Kupfer) is pretty moot, as the name was well formed around 1270.

3. Please do not draw any hasty conclusions on "Nationality" without considering the some 15 years of debate on this issue here. Especially please carefully read the chapter "Nationality" in the article before making changes. Thanks! ASchudak (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Correct information was removed!! I.e. DNA information of Mikołaj Kopernik! Infirmacion published is polarized to view him as German! But he was Polish!!!! 190.33.220.178 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Correct information was removed!! I.e. DNA information of Mikołaj Kopernik! Infirmacion published is polarized to view him as German! But he was Polish!!!!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The Stanford source in this very article says that he was a quote “child of a German family [that] was a subject of the Polish crown.” (source 5). This part is however omitted whilst emphasising Poland everywhere. Following his famous latin name is a polish name, giving the impression he was born that way. The sources 5, 11 and 12 in this in this very article say otherwise. He was actually named after his father, who was named “Nicolaus” (latin spelling). There is no evidence that he was ever called “Mikołaj”. The article should 1) List his name in proper order, famous latin name first, birth-name and only then the polish translation of the name (if that is relevant at all). 2) correctly reflect sources. I have no desire to enter an edit war with polish nationalist right wingers, but call on experienced editors to better reflect what the actual sources say. Lokkhen (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

550th birthday

is today 19th February 2023. The World Copernican Congress, organised to mark the 550th anniversary of the birth of Nicolaus Copernicus, will begin on February 19th with at NCU Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, later in other cities. The twitter account of "The Chancellery of the Prime Minister or Poland" (Mateusz Morawiecki since 2017) twittered "„Stopped the Sun, moved the Earth”. #OTD we celebrate 550th anniversary of the birth of Nicolaus #Copernicus, the Polish Renaissance man who presented the first, since Ancient Greece, heliocentric model of the Solar System. Copernicus is the parton of 2023." Matthead (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In the "Theology" section, the information differs from its source.

In the "Theology" section, early on, there are a number of quotes to a controversy with Calvin. This controversy is supported by sources 112 and 113 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708147). It turns out that such a source explains that the aforementioned quotes from Calvin are not actually found in the writings of that author, but in the words of Bertrand Russel who, in turn, makes no mention of a source. It should be noted that this source is Edward Rosen, an expert in Copernicus.

Furthermore, such quotations attributed to Calvin against Copernicus are now recognized as non-existent. Russell probably obtained the "citations" via Andrew Dickson White and his "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom", where they first appear. The Wikipedia article on White's book itself exposes the situation.

Finally, I myself possess all of Calvin's commentaries, including those of Genesis and Psalms, cited in this article (about Copernicus) and I can state that there is no similar quote. In fact, there is no citation to Copernicus' name in Calvin's work, either positive or negative.

Therefore, it would be fair to completely remove the references to Calvin, because: 1) they are unlikely (Calvin simply does not address the issue raised by Copernicus anywhere); 2) refers to indirect citations that do not cite sources; 3) misuses the source, as the author is denouncing the fact that the quote to Calvin does not refer to the original source.

The text would then look like this (first paragraph of "Theology"): "Tolosani may have criticized the Copernican theory as scientifically unproven and unfounded, but the theory also conflicted with the theology of the time. One sharp point of conflict [...]"

An alternative would be to amend the text, explaining that this was an idea popularized by White (and then Russell), but that it does not match reality, citing the same sources that exist in the articles about White and his book.

Mistocrente (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistocrente (talk • contribs) 15:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC) 

You are mistaken about the quotations of Calvin. There are two such quotations given in the Theology section of the article. Rosen, in the article of his that you cite, attributes both of them directly to Calvin (on pages 437 and 438), citing a 1948 re-issue of John King's translation of Calvin's Commentaries on the Book of Genesis (Vol.I, p.61) for the first, and a 1949 re-issue of James Anderson's translation of Calvin's Commentaries on the Book of Psalms (Vol.IV, pp.6-7) for the second. It's true, as Rosen documents, that anti-Copernican statements which Calvin never made have been misattributed to him, but these two quotations are not among them. The reasons you offer for completely removing the references to Calvin therefore don't stand up to scrutiny. However, I believe the truth of your parenthetical comment, "Calvin simply does not address the issue raised by Copernicus", is sufficient, just by itself, to justify the removal.

2001:8003:1D7D:5100:E00A:92E0:46A:C431 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ya 2601:204:C001:3A70:9CC9:5089:AE99:9B8 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

someone please correct small grammar issue

Near the beginning of the article it says that he was active as a mathematician, an astronomer, and Catholic canon. That's ungrammatical. Someone please correct it, e.g., to: active in mathematics, astronomy, and Cathologic canon. (I don't have an account, and don't want one, so I cannot correct it myself.) 2A02:A03F:8D32:AC00:441C:A3DD:7F9A:A742 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see the grammatical error. On the other hand, the existing statement says that he acted in different professions, not just doing a bit of math, astronomy and especially canon. So as a non-native speaker I cannot judge whether the existing sentence is grammatically wrong, but I know that your version does not carry the meaning that is supposed to be there. Just to explain why I will not follow your request. ASchudak (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

how do you know 2601:204:C001:3A70:9CC9:5089:AE99:9B8 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

Grammatical corrections? 205.213.104.147 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make any corrections - feel free to list the changes you'd like to make here and they will be made on your behalf. Tollens (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)