Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

I just recovered some discussions about Copernicus Nationality - seems to be the most important theme...

maybe you (we all) should remember more the historical connections between ethnics in history before the idea of national states were established in Europe (with all its consequences).

So from the outside i must say, mostly in the direction of some polish friends here, maybe you try a little to hard to make him a polish heroe. Why?

Because Germans are trying very hard to prove that he was German hero. Every reaction provokes contra-reaction. During war, They changed all the plates on all his monuments in Poland and Polish resistance was changing them back, in night. Something from that may stay in us...

But again, until Poland lost independence, no one doubt he was Pole. Doubts appeared in XIX century only. Szopen 07:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybee the solution is, not to speak about "german" or "polish" , but only "prussian" or other original therms. And dedicate all power to creativity.

José E, Spain

Of course you'd say that, Spain doesn't have any scientists. -- Chaz

Contents

1 Earlier discussions

1.1 Removed

2 Copernicus Uncle

3 Link

4 Why don't we call him a Polish scientist ??

5 Torun, Poland - let's have it the simple way

6 Actual stuff about Copernicus?

7 A modest proposal

8 Ptolemaic theory needed

9 Question about appropriate external links

10 Awkward

11 Naming issue

12 Nationality

13 Copernicus and Copernicanism

Earlier discussions

Uncles Name: Copernicus Uncles name was Lukasz Watzenrode and he was born in Krakow Poland. He wasnt german and had no von in his name.

The previous talk, about Copernicus' nationality, is now at talk:Copernicus' nationality

Removed quote:

In Padua both , his uncle, the Prince-Bishop and Copernicus had enrolled as student from the ...German Nation (Full name was at that time Holy Roman Empire of German Nation).

Removed quote:

Poland had parts of Prussia occupied, tried to annex and wanted to have Polish coins in Prussia. The cities of Elbing, Danzig and Thorn did not want to give up their individual sovereign rights and continued coining money. In 1519, 1522, and 1529 Copernicus published Money Reform Memoranda. His 1529 writings stated in part :

" Woe to you, unfortunate Prussiland, that you should have to suffer for such a bad money management!.. If we do not have relief here soon, then Prussia is soon going to have only coins left, which contain nothing but copper. Then all trade with foreign countries would stop. Which foreign tradesman would want to sell his merchandise for mere copper?... Such a break-up of Prussiland is silently observed by the big powers; they let our beloved fatherland, to which we owe everything, to which we owe life itself, from day to day collaps miserably.." (excerpt from Hermann Kesten, Copernicus, describing Prussia during the civil wars leading to the Reformation, transl by user:H.J.).

I'm really sorry, but this is just another attempt to throw in the Poland-Prussia debate in another guise. The manner in which the quote is presented, as well as the translation (there really is no such thing as Prussiland in English, and fatherland is doubtful at best), are simply unacceptable. Moreover, if this is a translation of someone's Latin-German translation, than I think that fatherland is simply the Latin patria -- VERY different than the context user:H.J. would like us to accept. Again, there has been so much time spent on this, that it's bordering on the ridiculous. Still, as a professional historian, I cannot sit by and allow this blatant misrepresentation. People in Copernicus' time really didn't understand ethnicity and nationality in the same way that you want to believe, Fr. user:H.J.. And, contrary to what you may believe, i don't care if Copernicus is Polish, German, or even Thornisch! Gianfranco is correct about placing the man's accomplishments first. What I do care about is that the debate and the entire issue of nationality are framed within the proper context: that context is one of people with an ideological interest allowing that interest to shape a view of history that is in fact inaccurate. JHK, Tuesday, May 21, 2002

PS: Hermann Kesten's undoubted brilliance as a dramatist and author aside, he was doubtless a man of his time. He was educated at a period when ethnic nationalism permeated the teaching of history, and when it was not only acceptable, but normal, to write history with underlying motives. Today, historians are expected to take the biases and background of the author into consideration. Moreover, we are expected to be more critical of historians who do seem allow their viewpoints to shape their presentation of history. I'm sorry, but all authors are not equal, and some scholarship is better than others. We should try to keep this in mind.

What is this?

Space Cadet -- please don't start-up the old German-Prussian problem -- I reverted to what we had all worked out a long time ago. JHK Of course, this was very far from what officially accepted in dominant culture. And even farther from the actually ruling religious influence on science was the following conclusion that an infinitive reality rendered de facto impossible the hypothesis of an external "engine", an entity that from outside could give a soul, a power and a life to the World and to Human beings. No transcendence, the most evident inspiring theme of philosophy at that time, could find an explanation in such a cosmic system, none of the most basic dogmas of Christianism (but of other religions too, the same way) could be compatible with such a revolutionary theory; besides, this opened a way to immanence and immanentism, which remained and developed in modern philosophy.

Given that immanentism is the logical foundation of subjectivism, that finds inside the Man the principles that rule thought, history and reality, some find that Copernicanism demolished the foundations of medieval science and metaphysics, therefore giving a start to a general movement that would have brought modern thought to rebel against the objectivism and the authoritarism of traditional thought.

Correctly, his innovation has been quite unanimously defined as a real revolution (despite the unwanted calembour).

Immanuel Kant, for instance, caught the symbolic character of Copernicus' revolution (of which he put in evidence the trascendental rationalism) underlining that, in his vision, human rationality was the real legislator of the phenomenical reality; Copernicanism was in a winning opposition against the scientific and philosophical Aristotelism, a quite subjective position (in a Kantist sense) meant to fight against the ruling dogmatism.

More recent philosophers too have found in Copernicus a still valid and valuable philosophical meaning, properly used to describe the position of the modern man in front of cultural traditions. A so-called Homo Copernicanus was then by some described like that modern man whose central themes are to be found in ordinary human problems, as a general cultural reference.

What some consider Copernicus important for. --Gianfranco

Removed

(unfortunately nothing of this remains to us)

I agree with this evaluation, but it's a POV. If someone wants to put this idea back, try "of which nothing remains today" ... Ed Poor

Sorry Ed, I reverted back to an earlier version that reflected huge amounts of work and cooperation in a truly wiki spirit. Much of the discussion seems to have been lost between the old software and the new (or maybe it was archived somewhere, because the talk page was enormous), but this version was deemed acceptable by the largest amount of people involved. You can kind of tell because it's been pretty much left alone until very recently, when user:H.J. started sneaking in her agenda. No offense meant, but you just don't know how hard it was to get it this way -- and if you're wondering, I actually have several strong objections to the way it is, but believe it's best to leave it in what the group found most neutral.JHK

PS -- weren't the place-name links in German, but pipelined to the Polish names??

After your revert, I changed the birthplace sentence again, to show both variations of the name: Thorn and Torun. And I balanced a parenthesis.

HJ -- that wasn't "information about his studies" that was an unordered list of facts that you were using to try to prove your theory about Copernicus' nationality. We have gone over this topic many times. You clearly do not understand that nationality and citizenship were very differently understood in Copernicus' time that they are today. Moreover, you don't want to understand -- you simply want to try to force some misled artificial construct into this article because that's the only way your world view can function. Please try to be more straightforward and do what you are saying you're doing. Otherwise, is smacks of intellectual dishonesty. JHK

I am posting the info on Copernicus here, which was removed by JHK from the article Nicolaus Copernicus:

Why you ,JHK, an recent American professor, want to suppress important information. This (and many other attempts to suppress information) is as much a puzzle to me, as your constant insistence on using Polish place names (used since 1945 Soviet take-overs) for German places, when on the other hand you keep writing that original names are supposed to be translated into English language here at wikipedia.

Do you do this on your own or is this a American University System -described action ?

In 1491 Copernicus entered Krakow university, and here he met astronomy for the first time, thanks to his teacher Albert Brudzewski. This science soon fascinated him, as his books (now in Uppsala's library) show. After four years and a brief stay in Thorn, he moved to Italy, where he studied law at Bologna's university. His uncle financed his education and wished for him to become a bishop as well.

"In Bologna's "Annales of the German Nation of 1496" on page 141 Is recorded:Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn and a registration fee of 9 Grosseten (Groschen). This identifies his field of studies. The Natio Germanorum only educated lawstudents at that time, and only those, whose native language was German. Copernicus also studied as Padua. A doctor diplom of 1503 was found in Ferrara, which documents Nicolaus Copernicus from Prussia, who studied at Bologna and Padua... While studying canon and civil law, he met Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara, a famous astronomer. He followed his lessons and became a disciple and assistant." user:H.J.

Maybe you could just try to make sense. It's enough to say that he studied law at Bologna. If you add the bit about Bologna's "Annales of the German Nation", you are referring to something that must be explained. Since the title isn't even sensible English (Annales isn't English, but annals is) one has to question the source. What exactly is the Natio Germanorum? this is unclear from what you've written. Where is the proof that it only accepted students whose native language was German -- could it have been German speakers? Was this part of the university of Bologna?

HJ, no one is trying to cover anything up. Unfortunately, what you want to put in just doesn't make a lot of sense and opens up more questions than it answers. Those questions might fit in a book on Copernicus (maybe), but not a brief encyclopedia article. And again, the way you have written it (that is, in a way that implies that Copernicus was German in the modern sense of the word) is meant to mislead readers into making assumptions that just aren't accurate. To do this in public is to encourage a kind of dishonesty. Copernicus may well have spoken German as his first language. That doesn't mean that his allegiance was to a non-existent Germany or to a germanic Prussia. It's just wrong to imply something when there are lots of other factors that make that implication suspect.

Oh -- and the Polish names are used when they are used because that's what the cities are called in English today. It doesn't matter what my grandfather learned to call them (for example, Danzig) -- it's what they are now called that counts. That said, an article on St. Petersburg, would include the name changes to Petrograd and Leningrad within the article -- and if I were talking about the city in 1950, I'd call it Leningrad, because that's what the city was officially called at that time. With Danzig, I'm not positive that the Polish-speaking inhabitants didn't call it Gdansk or one of the Latin names in, say 1400 -- are you? There probably wasn't agreement then, because educated people often used Latin. But if you read the Gdansk article, it's clear that English speakers called it Danzig till 1945, and that the German name was more commonly used for the city. But we don't call it that any more, and that's what counts here. JHK

HJ, maybe this will help, since it's not touchy for you. THere are some islands off the coast of Argentina that a huge number of the locals and especially the neighbors call the Malvinas. But the official name of the islands is the Falklands. That's the name that all English-speaking countries recognize as the official name. If I were to continuously refer to those islands as the Malvinas on the wikipedia, it could be taken as a statement that the wikipedia believed that the UK had no claim to those islands. By the same token, people on either side of the political fence have different names for the country whose official name is Northern Ireland. By using the official name, we stay as neutral as possible -- although in this case, staunch Republicans would certainly object to that choice. JHK

To JHK, I thought, that you did some research into Hanseatic League cities when you started writing something about it. Apparently you are not aware of the fact, that Hanseatic League cities, had a requirement, to be a burgher of the city, one had to be a German language native speaker. This was certified. Thorn was a Hanseatic League city and took part in Hansa Days until 1669, so did Danzig. Elbing dropped out a few years prior to that, because of the English trade. There were no Polish people living in the cities of Thorn, Danzig nore Elbing. The Copernicus or rather the Nicolai family is recorded to have lived in the center of the city, well within the city walls. And as I wrote previously somewhere Nicolaus signed into the German school in Bologna for German language native speakers as Kopperlingk, after his father's business of dealing with copper.

There was no written Polish language until the 16th century. Therefore whatever was written down by who knows what in 1400 was not Polish language. Perhaps something that looks like Gdansk was written by a Danish or in Danish language: Dansk person. Beside the Hanseatic League cities all had Hansa Seals and the Hansa Seals had/have Latinized names.

Lets stay with the subject and lets not jump from the Baltic Sea to South America.

user:H.J.

HJ -- either you want to deliberately misunderstand everything I say, which is simply rude, or you are incapable of understanding the points I make which is plain stupid and ignorant. I didn't say that Polish burghers, which would be citizens with full rights -- just inhabitants. AFAIK (and I could be wrong), there were colonies of traders from other countries often posted in Hansestaedte. As I remember, they were allowed little movement. Whatever the case, there is plenty of evidence for interaction between Polish and German speakers in the area which encompassed Thorn and Danzig. I am not concerned with whether or not it was written in Polish -- I only mentioned that Poles may have called it something different when speaking among themselves. Perhaps if these types of differentiations are too difficult for you to understand, you should take some remedial English (and history) courses. JHK

"The earliest evidence for Polish comes from various sorts of names for persons, places and tribes recorded in medieval Latin documents going back to the ninth century. From then until the fourteenth century other attestations can be found in other Latin texts, but these are mostly single lexical items. In the fourteenth century whole texts in Polish begin to appear, the earliest being religious in nature, for example, a collection of sermons and a translation of the Psalms. Medieval Polish is well attested through court depositions where reported speech is recorded in Polish. Portions of the bible were translated by the middle of the fifteenth century. Some of these early texts exhibit a rudimentary standaridization process. Printing arrived in 1513 and with it greater standardization of spelling. The sixteenth century--the Golden Age of Polish literature--saw the first printing of dictionaries, grammars, and spelling guides..." - UCLA Language Project

To 64... Here is a site about Polish language and literature http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/Polishli.html , also click on Polish literature beginnings in the 16th century. First bible in Polish language , also 16th century. http://www.worldscriptures.org/pages/polish.html Many of the so-called Polish kings did not speak Polish, nore live in Poland.

Please note: most websites today tell you about todays Poland, which includes a large part of German lands. For example one source says, that the first book in Poland was printed in 1475 in Wroclaw. Well, that was not in Poland, but in the Holy Roman Empire in Breslau, Silesia in Germany. user:H.J.

Hmm. The "one source" that erroneously says "that the first book in Poland was printed in 1475 in Wroclaw" is the "site about Polish language and literature" from Bartleby.com you gave as an authority in the preceding paragraph. Ortolan88

That is just one example of many for the confusion with "then" and "now" places . Just like the placenames are constantly changed in wikipedia to Polish names for German places, even though the places are still named the same in German language. user:H.J.

I believe I am heavily biased on this topic: I am for sure not interested in where Copernicus was from or in what his birthplace was or represented. At all.

I just want to read a correct, serious, mature, not-childish, not-ideological article on one of the main topics of an Encyclopedia. And I have seen that I'm not the only one.

After all the previous talk, especially the one in my talk page, I find deeply disturbing to read again such sillyness; please don't follow in this useless direction or I'll be voting for protecting this page. I could even find it offensive to ignore all what has been written before, as if it was dry air and nothing more. The previous discussions, indeed, had been written with attention to people's different positions, with care of interlocutors, and were meant to find a positive point of common sense. These chats are now consequently quite unrespectful toward us.

We created a separate page, time ago, all reserved to this marvellous sub-topic so, in case of unrestrainable need, please go there to develop nationalistic themes.

This article was conceived with great effort by many of us. These points were already discussed and nothing new is brought us today, so we still have the right to read the Wikipedian article as it was finally released in Wiki style. Of course, anything can be improved, but - believe me - we will need a really serious and scientific reason to change even one word in it, by now onwards. --Gianfranco

Gianfranco, mille Grazie!

i'm glad you're still around, especially since you were so instrumental in constructing what I thought was an article acceptable to all of us. As you can no doubt tell I have added little to the article (except a condensed mention of Copernicus' work on monetary reform) and tried to keep the article's integrity. Strangely enough, I also really don't care what Copernicus' nationality (a concept that really is anachronistic in the sense normally used here)was. I only care that incorrect interpretations and assumptions don't become the norm, because I want the wikipedia to be a credible body of information. JHK

I changed

He is generally considered to be Polish, but of German origins, although there is some debate on the subject among ethnic nationalists (See here).

There has been some debate on Copernicus' nationality.

My wife's father is Polish, and I love the RPN (Reverse Polish) calculators. Poland is a wonderful country. But please, let's try not to overwhelm the Copernicus article with debates over his nationality. He was born long ago and far away (from me), and he changed history with his solar-centric astronomy. He belongs to the world. --Ed Poor

Ed, I restored it, because this is part of a much larger debate, one that really touches the principles of the project. Copernicus IS generally regarded as Polish. But, in more recent years, there has arisen debate. In reality, it doesn't matter to persons of sense. It's fair to mention the debate, though, and link it to more discussion. Since it's a couple of lines out of a really long article, it's hardly overwhelming. It was also the only way we could manage to keep user:H.J. from polluting it with a bunch of propaganda. The most important thing, IMHO, is that the article be clear, neutral, and as accurate as we can make it.

For this last reason, I changed the really nice bit that I think Ortolan added on Royal Prussia to "Hanse city of Thorn". I looked, and if the map used to define where Thorn/Torun was is the map I think it was, it doesn't represent the area at the time of Copernicus' birth. We know that the city was a member of the Hanseatic League (and to a degree able to choose its own allegiance, though nominally under the auspices of the HRE), so I thought it best to go with the unarguable fact.

I also removed some duplicated links. I'll probably do some more clean-up of place-names later -- after we decide whether it's better to have the name in German, linked to the Polish named article, or whether to put the Polish naame in parentheses after each first occurrance. I vote for the former -- opinions from anyone else, please?? JHK

I vote we use the historical English name followed by the modern English name in parenthesis. Which may not follow either the German or the Polish. --rmhermen

Modern meaning current? would I look that up on the CIA site? JHK

Is it really true that Copernicus worked together with Albrecht on monetary reform? He worked with everybody, however he was driven force and during the war Copernicus and Albrecht were enemies.

I removed the following about Aristarchus:

His theory was mainly focused on the principle that, being the Sun so much greater than the Earth, thus much heavier, it would have been very unlikely that it could revolve around our Globe.

But, in practice, Aristarchus' theory had little mechanical and geometric development, and it was mostly based on an intuition (some said it was a sort of pre-newtonian intuition, rather than a pre-copernican one, having in nuce guessed that it is the proportion among masses that rules the planets' movements); so it could not sustain a comparison with the dominant geocentric theory, at the time already better developed and provided with more scientific arguments.

None of these statements is based on fact, they are speculations -- we don't have Aristarchus' main work about heliocentrism, and we can only speculate that his conclusions about the mass of the sun may have led him to put it at the center, but such speculations are weak at best -- for all we know, Aristarchus' may have developed the entire Copernican theory. See Aristarchus for what we know and what we don't know.

Oh, and whether Aristarchus ever was in Alexandria is disputed, so I removed that, too. --Eloquence

Space Cadet -- please don't start-up the old German-Prussian problem -- I reverted to what we had all worked out a long time ago. JHK

JHK, --- No problem.
So did I.
Best regards.
Space Cadet 13:35 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Copernicus Uncle

Copernicus Uncles name was Lukasz Watzenrode and he was born in Krakow Poland. He wasnt German by and had no Von in his name. It should be corrected I keep correcting it but a certian admin seems to be abusing his powers.

I read many times that in Bologne there was no "Polish natio" and all Polish (English etc generally all "northern") students were therefore joining "German natio". Can anyone confirme whether in Bologne at time of Copernicus studies existed "Polish natio"? Natio means more than college, i think. Besides, if there is already separate article, why again add it here?@!?user::szopen

You wrote that there are no evidences that he spoke Polish. I wanna know who told you that? He was also a polish Polititian! His Father is polish and his mother German. There are no evidences for that he used German language as his first language! After 500 years you can`t prove it. If the German will call Kopernikus an Ethnik German, than the polish could call Nietsche an ethnik Pole, who was Born in Germany. Look at von Klausewitz. there is an polish origin in both names you never can denie! Nietsche hates the German, and looked for an polish origin. Would the Poles think in the same way as the German, they could find more Germans with a polish origin. And dont forget the the Jews. 200 years of German dominated history of East Europe is anough. The English uncritically believed every german version and looked very ironicaly on the polish.So please never write again so stupid things,about ethnik origin of Kopernik.The fact is he was an Loyal polish Polititian, like von Klausewitz a Prussian was. To discuss the ethnik origin is an insane joke. All we have are hints. I ask you what is Polish, what is German? You´ve forgot, that the most East Germans between Oder and Elbe are Slavic origin! So we could polemize all the day.......! To the Polish Nation you have so lot

I've read alot of Anti-German propaganda here in Wikipedia that seems to be mostly coming from Polish contributors. What worries me is the racist and nationalistic attitude these people show. Like the poster above they try to construct history along genetic lines like Germans vs. Slavs. But there are no such destinct lines. What we call "German" is mainly a cultural identity and not a gentical identity. "Germans" consists of Germans, Celts, Slavs, Romans and nowadays over 12% other etnicities from far away places like Turkey or Africa. Beeing slavic by genetics doesn't tell you anything about the cultural identity of a person. It is as absurd as claiming that there are no Americans but only Germans, English, Poles, Italians, etc. living in what we call the United States of America. No, they are Americans and not Germans or Poles anymore. Likewise is anybody who's practicing the German culture a German.

The text of de rev is great--the graphics don't come out on my screen.. could someone add something about the order of the planets and the concentric spheres of copernicus?

I can't read the graphic this morning ;-) -Smkatz 15:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Will the two gentlepersons who are currently in a revert war please ask for mediation? That's we do nowadays instead of this kind of useless pollution of a needed article. Wikipedia:Mediation is where you can find out about the process. Or I'll just request that the page be locked in a day or so; or maybe somebody else will before then. The version that gets locked in will be at the whim of the sysop who does it, so your odds of getting your own version locked in are no better than a coin flip. Dandrake 19:48, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

The latest nationalist to assault this page made something that resembled a point. If Torun was in Poland then and is in Poland now -- or maybe "under Polish jurisdiction" would be more neutral -- the the phrase "then in Poland" is a little out of focus. I like "then, as now, in the territory [or under the jurisdiction] of Poland"; but it's a little pompous and invites new wars. Just thought I'd raise the question. Dandrake 00:30, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

RickK didn't like the editorial comment I placed in the HTML, and took it out. OK, so be it. Now, does he or anyone else have a workable approach the to the problem I was trying to address? Somebody comes in and sees that the text on Copernicus is WRONG and probably a piece of malicious [currently] German propaganda. He changes it and goes on his way, leaving it ready for the next visitor to find the new piece of malicious [now Polish] propaganda. Of course he doesn't go to the page history or the Talk page, not knowing about this stuff. Exactly what do we lose by placing, at the very point where he's about to make a change, a cautionary note? May I remind you that the ordinary reader will never see this text?

OK, it doesn't always work. Within a day or so another damn nationalist bozo came along and ignored it. (Though, as noted above, his point could be worth considering, here where it belongs.) Still, again, what do we lose by this?? If my wording is bad, which it is, written in the heat of seeing a fresh edit war, and re-written only 3 or 4 times to tone it down, let someone propose better wording. Or something. Anything. But is it really enough just to, in effect, revert my change without comment or discussion? Dandrake 01:10, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I just hate having embedded, hidden comments in the text. I've deleted it in every case where I've found it. If it's worth talking about, it's worth putting on the Talk page. RickK 01:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your last sentiment is a fine one. Would you like to get it across to the people who don't look at the talk page?

What the heck, we're having it demonstrated right now that no rational action will deter certain sorts of asshole. I like to believe that there are people who can be reached, provided some information is placed where it will reach them, but they will always be outnumbered by rabid Central European nationalists.

So here it is on the Talk page, as you want it to be: Hey, guys, discuss the nationality issue here first. Dandrake 07:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Folks, please try to find a compromise on the discussion page. I've protected the page.—Eloquence 05:14, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Let me make few points clear first: 1) Polish is cultural thing, not genetics. there were a lot of Poles whose fathers/mothers came from elsewhere.

2) Torun/Thorn was not under jurisdiction of Poland, it was part of Polish kingdom. You can't put it in other way without offensing historical truth.

3) Copernicus was therefore subject to Polish king, so he was "Pole". He was also "German" in the sense of his ethnicity. But i doubt that he saw anything wrong with that. If you would ask him "are you Pole?" He probably would answer yes, the same answer probably he would gave when asked if he was German.

4) Stop bashing Poles, for God sake. It's very annoying. Westerners tend to IGNORE Polish historians. Yes, Polish historians are biased. But you know what, German are biased too. Don't call Poles nationalist if we are only trying to present facts from Polish point of view, and neutral point of view citing German point of view. Both are valid.

5) it may be true that we Poles, _are_ oversensitive over such issues. But there were too many times used to show inherent inferiority of Poles or Slavs in general. During war people were persecuted for calling Copernicus Pole; It would be strange if that would not left trace on our psyche. Saying that it still doesn't mean that we are nationalist only ebcause we have different opinion than others.

Heh, and i though i would be able to stop to be involved in wikipedia for longer than month. If i wouldn't be at wikipedioholic club, i would join now... Szopen

Link

When this get unprotected, could someone put in this link? thanks ... JDR

"Chasing Copernicus: The Book Nobody Read (http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1746110.html)". Was One of the Greatest Scientific Works

Really Ignored?. All Things Considered, NPR. March 4, 2004.

Why don't we call him a Polish scientist ??

A scientist that is an American citizen born to American parents is called an American scientist. A scientist that is a Polish citizen born to Polish parents should be also called a Polish scientist. Mestwin 02:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poland had been for centuries a multi-ethnic country and a political nation, just like USA is today. All subject of Polish kings *were* Poles by definition, regardles of their ehnic origin. Copernicus' father moved from Cracow, Poland to Torun, Poland so he and his children are *Poles* by definition. It's is possible he had some ethnic background, but most of Poles have some. 217.96.26.45 22:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Torun, Poland - let's have it the simple way

There's no doubt that Copernicus was born in the city of Torun, Poland. in 15th century the city belonged to Chelmno Land (or Chelmno Voivodship), province of Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland. The standard format of referring to cities is town, country so let's have it the simple way Torun, Poland.

BTW. Torun together with the Chelmno Land was not the newly acquired province (such words are false and offensive). Torun was newly restored or newly liberated land. 217.96.26.45 22:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW. At the time Copernicus was born the city was usually spelled as Thorun and today it is spelled Toruń. This is the English Wikipedia, there is no need to used the city's 19th century German name of Thorn. 217.96.26.45 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uhm.. Yeti? I thought that "There is little doubt about his citizenship, but some argue over his origins" translate into Polish as "Nie ma watpliwosci tyczacych jesgo obywatelstwa, ale niektorzy wyklocaja sie o jego pochodzenie". Am I wrong?! Szopen

Once upon a time, many people who approached this article from a pretty neutral POV decided to work together on this article. We had edit wars with POV people on both the German and Polish sides of the question, and eventually came up with a version, written mostly by Gianfranco that was acceptable to most. No one was completely happy, but we could agree that the article was both neutral and accurate.

I notice that once again nationalist politics have entered the fray. The article is now written in considerably less correct and readable English, and has lost much of its overall quality. I hope you all are happy in destroying a superior example of wiki cooperation and replacing it with something much weaker, just to make your own petty points. It is both a shame and shameful. JHK

Actual stuff about Copernicus?

Now that the nationalist wars seem to have gone dormant for the moment, we might be able to work a little on the article's treatment of Copernicus and his work. Yeah, radical idea. Does anybody feel up to tackling the long philosophical Discussion with all its transcendence and the like? One feels that more things, and different ones, could be said. Meanwhile, not being a philosopher, I hope to get in some more material about the historical fate of his system. Dandrake 03:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have had to remove this interesting bit from the text concerning the Osiander preface:

(Doubts have been advanced regarding this volunteer addition in order to let the theory have a wider circulation before a foreseeable reaction - see text here [1] (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/readers/renaissance.astro/1.1.Revol.html)).

because the link appears to be dead. Dandrake 04:06, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I invite everyone who cares about the actual subject of Copernicus to join in a simple policy: immediately revert any change that involves claims about his nationality, if the change hasn't already been discussed on the Talk page. (An alternate policy would be to avoid this Godforsaken page entirely, but I found that too hard to do, in light of the importance of the subject.) No reasonableness test; no careful rebuttals; no remonstrances; just kill it. Suggestions for change in the accepted text about his nationality will be considered here, and might even turn out to be desirable, and at the worst will show the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated when reason is let free to combat it. Dandrake 06:10, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really care about the nationality issue at all (Germany was far from being anything resembling a coherent state until 1871 and Poland was split so many times that you might as well stop counting), but the current situation, where the article Copernicus' nationality is effectively an orphan and the issue is ignored in the main article, is unsatisfactory. At least have a sentence linking to it in the intro. FWIW, I'd like to see a single credible historian who refers to this as an issue of nationality. It is very telling that the article on the matter does not include a bibliography. Europe at this time was still deeply rooted in feudalism, and nobody on either side of this debate -- neither the Poles nor the Germans -- would have liked to live under the conditions of total dependency that this implied, so I find the whole debate somewhat amusing.--Eloquence *

Eloquence, Poland was partitioned twice: First, there were three partitions in the end of XVIII century and this lasted 120+ years, second in 1939 and this lasted 6 years. You haven't got problems with counting, aren't you?

Szopen 06:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Even if you count the time of Fragmentation between the rulerships of Boleslaus the Wrymouthed and Ladislaus the Elbow High, it's still less than five. What are you smoking, Eloquence? It must be pretty good. Space Cadet 14:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Aside from the Great Partitions in the 18th century, there were constant wars over territorial control from and to the West and East and long periods of foreign occupation. The nation state of Poland did not develop any coherence (as in independence and stable borders) until 1918, and even then it was soon to be taken under foreign control again. To speak of a single Polish or German nation in the context of the year 1500 is highly anachronistic. --Eloquence *

Eloquence, again, what?!? Poland had VERY stable western border from end XV century to half of XVIII century. if bordr does not change for more than centuries, then it is not stable? Also, are you claim that Poland was not independent in say 1600 or that Poles were unaware of their nationhood? Or maybe you ascribe to that absurd theory that "nations" did not exist before XIX century? Szopen 07:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

When I read books by Polish authors from 15th and 16th I find mentions about Polish nation all the time. Can you explain it? :-) Yeti 10:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

If I may barge back in: I've been reverting the article to the state that seems to represent a consensus reached in earlier disputes. If there was a consenus on some different wording, I'll back off in a flash.

Yes, I think that nations, as a philosophical concept, as a social entity, in a stable and coherent form are indeed a product of the 18th and 19th century. However, you are mistaken if you believe that I want to get into this whole messy debate. My main points were this: 1) The nationality article should be linked from the actual page, 2) This issue is hugely overblown and emotionalized. Point 1) seems to be disputed by nobody and point 2) seems to be proven beyond all reasonable doubts by this thread. As for the rest, I'll leave this to you to fight over since you seem to care about these matters a lot.--Eloquence *

Let's says that we are in disagreement over appearance of nations. Nations, as concept of separate ethnic cultures with separate languages and with need to have their own states, appear earlier than in XVIII century: unless you want me to ignore ALL Polish medieval and later sources. This was different concept of nationalism, of course, so NC probably thought about himeslf as about Prussian, Pole and German in the same time; Szopen 12:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

May I assume (and this is not a sarcastic figure of speech) that the position of this, implying a reply to my comment, is an oversight in editing? I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't give a very small damn about the nationality question, except to keep it from interfering with an article about an imporant person and his work. I have pushed the 3-revert limit in the hope of reducing the provocation for some advocate of the German side (certainly not Eloquence) to escalate the battle to the old levels; the process has shown me that my modest proposal did not get a consensus. I agree, though, on not wanting to get into the debate. I don't even want to see the debate. If this article came up on VFD, I'm not sure I wouldn't vote in favor, just to keep the natioalist bullshit battles restricted to subjects I don't care about. Dandrake 22:54, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

It was not intended as a reply to you, Dan.--Eloquence *

The nationality article was split off (I presume -- this was a bit before my time) to move those disputes out of here so that, at the least, one could edit the significant stuff about NC without getting one's edits caught up in a nationalist pissing contest. (Not to say at all that this discussion is one of those; if you want to see one, check the archives, either of this page or of the article itself.) My idea is to zap any changes made without discussion here, regardless of which side they're on, to keep the level of provocation down in the article itself and stop escalation.

That said, I'm shocked to see that there isn't even a pointer to the nationality page. IMHO this is dumb and contrary to the whole idea. Maybe we can agree that the NC article needs a pointer to [[Copernicus' nationality], preferably in the intro, and surely we can then agree on an NPOV wording for it? Dandrake 22:43, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yup Szopen 12:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did ;-). Przepla 19:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ptolemaic theory needed

Having nothing to do with nationality... The "equant" link under Copernican Theory points to an unrelated corporate stub. Article and disambig needed here. Does anyone remember exactly what an equant is anyway? I think it's an off-center circular orbit but I'm not sure. Stay tuned. Mashford 18:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question about appropriate external links

Hello, I recently made my first contribution to Wikipedia, by adding links to two digitized facsimiles of De revolutionibus here. I did this after noticing that links to translated text from the work and a scan of the title page were included in the list of the links. I knew these digitized full versions existed, so I added them. However, one of them was produced by my institution (hence my awareness) and I am now concerned whether this link would be appropriate or seen as promotional in nature. I added similar links to the De revolutionibus and Brahe articles. Could someone inform me of the proper etiquette? I have looked at the policy and etiquette pages, which only made me further conflicted and unsure about the matter. I feel these links would make helpful additions to these articles, but do not want to break any policies or accepted practices. Thanks much for the help.

Hi, welcome.. I think that this is not a problem. Chiefly, this material is practically the definition of public domain by longevity; and the sources appear to present them for general use. I agree that these are useful additions, and not an etiquette issue. (ipso facto, it is not considered promotional to properly cite sources.) Because I'm partial to Copernicus, I might consider including the image in the page anyway. Mashford 06:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Awkward

It's rather awkward that Poles seems to be claiming the German astronomer Copernicus as a "Pole". He was born to an ethnic German family in a predominantly German-speaking Hanse city in Prussia, he spoke German as his native language. The fact that the city was under Polish suzerainty is irrelevant. Using such a logic, it did not exist Poles at all between 1793 and 1918, as there was no state called Poland. There were only Prussians/Germans, Austrians and Russians!

If Copernicus had lived in 1945, he had been brutally expulsed/ethnically cleansing or murdered with his entire family by the Poles. Undoubtly, he would then be living in West Germany and be a supporter of the expellee party, and would almost certainly not consider himself "Polish".

I would say the other way: until XIX century Copernicus was commonly refered as Polish astronomer and nobody had doubted it. Definetely, If you would ask Copernicus who is he, he would answer Prussian, but Prussian for him meant something else than for you: the term in his times included German-speaking burghers from Gdansk and Polish-speaking nobles. Then he would describe himself as both Pole and German, i would say.

As for you insinuation about expulsion, well, it wasn't mostly done by Poles, and despite what explees try to suggest it was MOSTLY done in much more civilised ways than expellings done earlier in war by Germans.

Second, nationality in XIX century was something different than in XV century. You are trying to apply your logic to XV century, when people national conscience was much more fluid and when it was based very often not only on language/family ties but often on political loyalty. YSecond, he was born in Prussia - province of POland (though authonomous) which means nothing for discussion. He spoke German, but he may as well speak Polish, he clearly recorder Polish names with proper spelling. The city elites were predominantly German-speaking, as for lower classes we don't know anything about it in XV century (the documents are from later parts) and it is irrevelant, since many German-speaking persons were Polish patriors (should I mention for example Dantyszek?)

Anyway, see Copernicus' nationality and discuss there and present arguments.

Szopen 17:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POlish wikipedia has it written that his contemporaries, with whom he writed, described him as Polish astronomer. Anything more about this? Szopen 18:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming issue

I am too tired to enforce the naming in article to be consistent with voting results from Gdansk\Vote. It seems, that the consensus is (though I don't like it, and even I strongly dislike it ) to use Thorn (Torun) and then Thorn (the rules for 1466 and after period apply). But them Frauenberg or Frombork? In this case, i doubt that anyway would say that Frauenberg is English name ... mm anyway someone could check it and then probably protect the page.

As for German-Polish astronomer, maybe we should return to neutral "astronomer" but leave him of course in category Polish astronomers, and maybe add him to German astronomers.

NOTE that there is already article about dispute over his nationality and there is no need to repeat it here, or on talk pages. Szopen 17:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, So it would be thorn (torun), breslau (wroclaw) - this cases are clear with new policy (though I dislike it). However cases like Olsztyn/Allenstein and Frombork/Frauenberg are clearly different. First, I doubt that Allenstein is nearly as popular as Thorn, or that it made it to English as "official" name, therefore is there need to change the name here?Szopen 15:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

83. etc anonymous user, please stop it. Your changes have only one goal: to impress the reader with info that Copernicus was NOT POlish astronomer. most of them are excellent examples of classical propaganda (technic named "omission"), eg stubborness in adding that Copernicus belonged to "German" natio in Bologne: which adds nothing to article, because at the time ALL POLISH STUDENTS BELONGED TO GERMAN NATIO, since NATIO was not declaration of ethnicty, but f* student corporation for God's sake! Polish NATIO in Bologne was created YEARS later! Similarly why removing That Cracow was Capitol of Poland and instead isnerting irrevelant info that it was Hanse city. etc, etc. You CAN discuss it at Copernicus' nationality page or at least try to justify your edits here!!!! Szopen 15:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, why reverting info that Royal Prussia was in Poland? Well, it was. It was autonomous province of Poland. Szopen 07:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

Something for German users...

Man hat mich gelehrt, die Herkunft meines Blutes und Namens auf polnische Edelleute zurückzuführen, welche Niëtzky hießen und etwa vor hundert Jahren ihre Heimat und ihren Adel aufgaben, unerträglichen religiösen Bedrückungen endlich weichend: es waren nämlich Protestanten. Ich will nicht leugnen, daß ich als Knabe keinen geringen Stolz auf diese meine polnische Abkunft hatte: was von deutschem Blute in mir ist, rührt einzig von meiner Mutter, aus der Familie Oehler, und von der Mutter meines Vaters, aus der Familie Krause, her, und es wollte mir scheinen, als sei ich in allem Wesentlichen trotzdem Pole geblieben. Daß mein Äußeres bis jetzt den polnischen Typus trägt, ist mir oft genug bestätigt worden; im Auslande, wie in der Schweiz und in Italien, hat man mich oft als Polen angeredet; in Sorrent, wo ich einen Winter verweilte, hieß ich bei der Bevölkerung il Polacco; und namentlich bei einem Sommeraufenthalt in Marienbad wurde ich mehrmals in auffallender Weise an meine polnische Natur erinnert: Polen kamen auf mich zu, mich polnisch begrüßend und mit einem ihrer Bekannten verwechselnd, und Einer, vor dem ich alles Polenthum ableugnete und welchem ich mich als Schweizer vorstellte, sah mich traurig längere Zeit an und sagte endlich “es ist noch die alte Rasse, aber das Herz hat sich Gott weiß wohin gewendet.” Ein kleines Heft Mazurken, welches ich als Knabe componirte, trug die Aufschrift “Unsrer Altvordern eingedenk!”—und ich war ihrer eingedenk, in mancherlei Urtheilen und Vorurtheilen. Die Polen galten mir als die begabtesten und ritterlichsten unter den slavischen Völkern; und die Begabung der Slaven schien mir höher als die der Deutschen, ja ich meinte wohl, die Deutschen seien erst durch eine starke Mischung mit slavischem Blute in die Reihe der begabten Nationen eingerückt. Es that mir wohl, an das Recht des polnischen Edelmanns zu denken, mit seinem einfachen Veto den Beschluß einer Versammlung umzuwerfen; und der Pole Copernikus schien mir von diesem Rechte gegen den Beschluß und den Augenschein aller andern Menschen eben nur den größten und würdigsten Gebrauch gemacht zu haben. Friedrich Nietzsche

One thing to bear: while I am Pole and I do think COpernicus is a Pole too, and while most of dictionaries, encyclopedias etc agreed that Copernicus was a Pole, this does not mean he couldn't be seen as in some sense German too. Anyway, that's not the point; Wikipedia does not record the "Truth". It records knowledge. If there is dispute about Copernicus nationality and if there is disagreement between wikipedians over it, then wikipedia records it. Period. Szopen 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copernicus and Copernicanism

Is anyone interested in a revision of this section? It's all about philosophical and religious implications, and it sounds, shall we say, idiosyncratic, and it seems to be unsupported by citations. Much of it seems just downright dubious.

If someone has an interest in the section, it would be nice to edit it so that one can tell what it's about and how it relates to what anyone other than the author thinks. If no one has, the best treatment for it might be excision. --Dandrake 04:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus"