Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

the sixth part of De revolutionibus

Is the sixth or fifth entry of the listing of parts in De revolutionibus wrong? Or are they the same? -Nathan czh (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed

I have now provided more specific detail for the contents of books 5 and 6. Thank you for pointing out these unnecessarily duplicated vague descriptions.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

life

to compare with the german version. there is no info about krakow and his parents were from the german citizenship of Thorn. simple translation: Nicolaus Copernicus was the son of Nicholas Koppernigk, a wealthy copper trader and aldermen in Thorn, and his wife Barbara Watzenrode. The family belonged to the German citizenship Koppernigk the Hanseatic city of Thorn,.... (178.5.158.206 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)).

The famous Copernicus Road in New Delhi

The impact of Copernicus is global and such that even in the eastern fast developing countries like India, roads were named after him post independence. Like the Copernicus Road in the famous Connaught Place [Place] in New Delhi. [Road|thumbnail|right|Copernicus Road] --Souravmukherjee7 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

There is a very slight typo in the following sentence in the "Controversy" section: "...Even in these thing that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

"thing" should be plural

Cheers,

~Peter Xenophon7 (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Averroes

In the Education section it is claimed in passing that Averroes influenced Copernicus' conception of the heliocentric universe. I've read in medieval Arabic/Islamic philosophy and am unfamiliar with this claim. It seems like a claim of significance to require a citation. Does anyone know of a source that supports this claim?

Killercrossover (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Killercrossover 2/19/13

Seems a fair point. I've removed:

and Averroes (which later would play an important role in shaping his theory) ""

for now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Reference Luther and Norman Davis is nonsense!

Since Copernicus had father Pole, polish name, was a subject of the Polish king, and fought in the Polish defense against the Germans (Teutonic Knights) are not able to be German!

You should write that he was a Pole. Jews only state the nationality of the mother's line. Germans and Poles after the father's line. Copernicus was therefore Pole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.50.231.198 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Every person being a subject of a Wiki article has its nationality stated. Why was 'Polish' removed from this initial sentence : 'Nicolaus Copernicus (German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; Polish: Mikołaj Kopernik (help·info); 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer...'??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.185.83 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't polish, he was a german. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.61.105 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not according to any serious encyclopedia in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.185.83 (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why Copernicus would he be a German? This is German nationalist propaganda. According to the many Germans, Poles were killing people in concentration camps and many people on the world believed in is a lie.

Copernicus was only a German mother, but his father was a Pole. He was the subject of the Polish king. He fought on the side of the Poles against the German Teutonic Knights (commanded the defense of Olsztyn). He came from a polish aristocratic (ród szlachecki) family from the village of Koperniki.

Why would he be a German?

For centuries, Germany considered that Copernicus is Pole . Now he has to change it?

I'm sorry for possible any mistakes in English.

Pole

Reverted to "Polish Renaissance astronomer" because as discussed previously it designates a person's nationality not ethnicity (for example, see Eduard von Simson (German nationality, Jewish ethnicity); Carlos Slim (Mexican nationality, Lebanese ethnicity); Lucy Liu (American nationality; Chinese ethnicity)). Because Copernicus was born in the Kingdom of Poland, fought for the Kingdom of Poland and died in the Kingdom of Poland there is no ambiguity with respect to his nationality even if ethnically he was half German. Astronomer28 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this first on talk. There is an inline comment no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Did you see the section on nationality? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is a pro-German Wiki user. Have seen him on a couple occasions putting through German agenda and ignoring pro-Polish arguments. Ignore the ignorant.

93.107.76.152 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is commonly asserted that his father was a Pole and he spoke Polish. I don't believe there is any evidence for this, if there is please show it. If we have to state national allegiance one should also add some kind of reference to ethnicity. The in the French wiki, the expression used is "était un chanoine, médecin et astronome de langue allemande", in the Italian "Copernico è in genere considerato un polacco discendente da una famiglia di origini tedesche".

I would also suggest a complete rewrite of the section on nationality. To state that "...the nationality debate [is] a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars during the interwar period.[105] is clearly incorrect and hypocritical as this endless discussion testifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wislostrada (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) on the matter? The neutral point of view is not to not state his nationality. Neutrality "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." The vast majority of sources refer to Copernicus as Polish. A small minority don’t assert his nationality. Therefore the NPOV is that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer and the length and tone of the nationality section is inappropriate given the NPOV. Most written sources don’t reference the debate at all. I have changed both to reflect the NPOV. Astronomer28 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

By looking through the archives I have found that you are a participant in this dispute for years. So you should know the arguments from all sides.

Copernicus' nationality is a disputed issue, as the sources that you deleted demonstrate. The consensus in this issue, as far as I can tell, is to abstain from making a judgement one way or another in the lede (there even was a hint in the lede with regard to that issue that you deleted, too) and reserve questions of Copernicus' nationality for the 'Nationality' section. Or do you have a better idea?

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a personal opinion on the matter based on my own research. But it doesn't really matter what my opinion is. The NPOV is what counts and the NPOV is that Copernicus was Polish. Astronomer28 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed important hints for editors, which have been in place _for years_. I'll repeat them for you:

Number one: "NOTE TO EDITORS: Please read the talk page before editing the three introductory paragraphs. These paragraphs represent a consensus on how best to present the essential information in the introduction. Other issues are discussed later in the article. Whether nationality should be attributed to Copernicus is in dispute among editors (see the Talk page and its archives)." (which means the following hint is editor consensus)

Number two, in the first paragraph of the lede: "no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" You even deleted part of that hint, the part about "no assertion of nationality"

So, by asserting a nationality you not only violated the editor consensus, you also misled future editors about what the editor consensus is - by removing the hint about not asserting a nationality!

The right thing to do would be if you respected the editor consensus that has been in place for years and reverted your edit yourself, and then change the editor consensus before you make any edits in the lede. So far you haven't changed the editor consensus yet.

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to deny the Polish nationality of Copernicus (1473-1543), who was born, lived and died in the Royal Prussian Province of the Kingdom of Poland, of which he was a conspicuously loyal citizen — on the ground that people back then did not think in terms of "nations" — while unhesitatingly calling Dante (1265-1321), who had lived 2 centuries earlier, when there would be no Italian state for another 6 centuries, an "Italian" poet.

If most of the world thinks Copernicus was Polish, could it be that they know something that Wikipedia has been unable to acknowledge? Nihil novi (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nivil Novi,

you might have a point if "people back then did not think in terms of "nations"" would be the _only_ ground for abstaining from asserting a nationality for Copernicus.

But this is _not_ the _only_ ground. There are lots of _other_ grounds (--> archives).

Dante is uncontroversial, Copernicus isn't.

Larkusix (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus is not disqualified from Polish nationality by his mixed Polish-German descent. Many prominent Poles have been of German or Austrian descent, including Samuel Linde, Joachim Lelewel, Aleksander Brückner, Rudolf Weigl, Władysław Anders, and the entire Estreicher family.

Copernicus is not disqualified from Polish nationality by having used, among others, the German language. Many Poles have done so while considering themselves Poles. The Polish novelist, dramatist and poet Stanisław Przybyszewski wrote his works in both German and Polish.

Nationality, in fact, is not automatically determined by the language(s) one uses. If that were the case, then Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and other peoples who use English would automatically be Britons.

Latin and some German-language writings by Copernicus survive. He corresponded with Poland's royal court in Latin because Latin was the court's official language. The first Polish author to write exclusively in Polish, Mikołaj Rej (1505-69), began doing so only well into Copernicus' lifetime.

We do know, however, that Copernicus was born, lived and died in the Kingdom of Poland and proved his loyalty to the Polish Crown with his military defense of its Royal Prussian Province against aggression by the Teutonic Knights in the Polish-Teutonic War of 1519-21. Earlier, his first experience of higher education had been at the Jagiellonian University in Poland's capital, Kraków; he later studied in Italy, never in any part of what, some 4 centuries later, would become a unitary German state.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nihil Novi,

there's nothing new in your post (pun intended). All these arguments have been brought forward several times and adressed with counterarguments several times in the discussion that lasted _for years_ on this talk section and that is documented in the archive.

Since you have been a participant in this debate back then, you should also know the points that speak _against_ ascribing Copernicus Polish nationality, or for that matter any nationality in the modern sense at all.

Why should we start this old conflict anew? Why shouldn't we just respect the editor consensus that lasted for years?

Best regards, Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate but closely related issues on Copernicus' nationality: 1) Is Copernicus a "Polish astronomer", based on the prominence and weight of published, reliable sources? 2) Is there a debate about Copernicus' nationality in published, reliable sources? Here's the list I've compiled, roughly listed in the order of importance.

Encylopedias

Encylopaedia Britannica (online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Encylopedia Americana (1986, vol. 7)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

The Oxford World Encyclopedia (1998; Oxford Reference online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online query, 2013)

"child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown"; no mention of debate

Columbia Encylopedia (online query, 2013)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Encylopedia Encarta (2008)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Popular books

A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (2008)

"Polish priest"; no mention of debate

On The Shoulders Of Giants, by Stephen Hawking (2003)

"Polish priest" and "Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

A More Perfect Heaven: How Copernicus Revolutionized the Cosmos, by Dava Sobel (2012)

omits nationality; no mention of debate

The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus, by Owen Gingerich (2005)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Copernicus' Secret: How the Scientific Revolution Began, by Jack Repcheck (2008)

omits nationality; no mention of debate

History of Astronomy (1908), by George Forbes

"a Sclav" [i.e., "Slav"]; no mention of debate

The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution, by Dennis Danielson (2006)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Textbooks

Astronomy: A Self-Teaching Guide, 7th edition, by Dinah Moche (2009)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Astronomy: A Physical Perspective, 2nd edition, by Marc Kutner (2003)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

Foundations of Astronomy, 11th edition, by Michael Seeds and Dana Bachman (2011)

"Polish astronomer"; no mention of debate

This is not a comprehensive list, but it gives a very good idea of the NPOV ("represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"). Second, with respect to any debate about his nationality in published sources, there was indeed a debate mostly during the Third Reich, but it appears to be rarely mentioned at all (not in any of the sources listed above), so any mention of a debate has to be commensurate with the length of the overall Wikipedia entry. I'm not opposed to including Davies' POV or any other sources in the nationality section, but keep in mind the length of the section, the prominence of the "nationality debate" in published sources, and the NPOV ("Polish astronomer"). Astronomer28 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Astronomer28,

are there any _new_ arguments in it, that haven't been covered already in the discussion that lasted _for years_ in the talk section?

The result of that discussion was the editor consensus (which, by the way lasted for years) to not assert any nationality in the lede. We have a whole nationality section where Copernicus' nationality can be covered.

Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the debate is covered too heavily in both versions. At the same time, I spotted some sources tossed out in the reversion. I would suggest a single mention in a very brief paragraph with say 4 or 5 sources from the many given. The debate has to do with society long after his death than with the man, his work, or his influence. It is entirely bored scholars and various nationalists yapping at one another.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That indeed seems to be the case, based on Astronomer28's review, above. On the other hand, I would see great value to somehow (via a footnote? via a link to a separate site?) adding that list to the article. The list is clearly the fruit of painstaking research and deserves to be given to the public. Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone get round to looking up the prior discussion of this in the archives? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Astronomer28 was even part of that discussion! Larkusix (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question: there is lots of discussion on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus/Archive_6. Some of it is wrapped around the Gdansk vote William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A28: you provide a long list of sources, but its long rather than deep. For example, you cite A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking (2008) for "Polish priest"; no mention of debate. But C was *not* a priest (Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 6#Copernicus was a Priest_-_according to_the Atheist_Stephen Hawkings). SH is a brilliant physicist, but not a brilliant historian. That doesn't make all your other refs wrong, of course, but it does make me doubt how carefully you've assessed them. I don't doubt that a long list of throwaway refs to C being Polish exist, but I doubt that is helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Canon (priest).Volunteer Marek 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Larkusix, with all due respect, I don't need your permission to change the article when it's very clear that the current version does not represent the NPOV and frankly is not congruent with Wikipedia's high standards we all strive for. Nor is it the consensus here so I have as much right to make changes as you. Mind you, I am not in any way opposed to changes by you or anyone else in the version I am presently putting forward but it represents the NPOV better than the current version. Furthermore, you and William M. Connolley bring up the fact that I posted on this very issue 4 or 5 years ago, implying that is a problem (??). As I’ve previously posted, based on my research I believe then, as I do now, that Copernicus should be described as a Polish astronomer; and as I pointed out then, as I do now, it is the WP:NPOV that matters.

Unfriend13 and Nihil novil - I think those are good approaches. I am putting forward a version that includes all sources in the current version but mentions that most scholars regard Copernicus as a Polish astronomer (the majority viewpoint). IMO it is still too long in relation to the full entry and needs editing in either manner you describe, but for now it represents the NPOV better than the current version. Your opinion and input, as well as those of others, would be appreciated.

---

Header:

Nicolaus Copernicus (Polish: About this sound Mikołaj Kopernik (help•info); German: Nikolaus Kopernikus; Italian: Nicolò Copernico; 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was a Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a comprehensive heliocentric model which placed the Sun, rather than the Earth, at the center of the universe.[1]

Nationality:

"While most scholars regard Copernicus as Polish, there has been discussion of Copernicus' nationality, mostly during the interwar period[105]. Historian Michael Burleigh describes the nationality debate as a "totally insignificant battle" between German and Polish scholars at the time of the Third Reich.[105] Polish astronomer Konrad Rudnicki calls the discussion a "fierce scholarly quarrel in... times of nationalism" and describes Copernicus as an inhabitant of a German-speaking territory that belonged to Poland, himself being of mixed Polish-German extraction.[106] Rudnicki adds that Martin Luther, an opponent of Copernicus' theories, regarded him as Polish and referred to him as a "Sarmatic fool". (At the time, "Sarmatian" was a term for a nobleman of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland.)[106] According to Czesław Miłosz, the debate is an "absurd" projection of a modern understanding of nationality onto Renaissance people, who identified with their home territories rather than with a nation.[107] Similarly historian Norman Davies writes that Copernicus, as was common in his era, was "largely indifferent" to nationality, being a local patriot who considered himself "Prussian".[108] Additionally, according to Davies, "there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language".[108] Davies concludes: "Taking everything into consideration, there is good reason to regard him both as a German and as a Pole: and yet, in the sense that modern nationalists understand it, he was neither."[108]

Encyclopædia Britannica,[107] Encyclopedia Americana,[108] The Columbia Encyclopedia[109] and The Oxford World Encyclopedia[110] identify Copernicus as a "Polish astronomer". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Copernicus as a "child of a German family [who] was a subject of the Polish crown".[4]"

---

Astronomer28 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC), Astronomer28 (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

wp:TLDR - the utter pointlessness of claiming modern nationality for someone who lived in the time of Copernicus is greatly over-covered in the article, and certainly does not need to be carried in the lead, and most certainly does not belong in sentence 1 of the wp:LEAD.

If we must have this in the lead, consider calling him perhaps "a Prussian born in what is now modern Poland" or "born in what is now modern Poland" or some such. But why does it belong? What in wp:MOS, wp:LEAD makes this very small fact important? Nothing. It bears discussion only as it is important to various nationalist/racist groups later in history, and has nothing to do with the man or his work.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, Copernicus was Prussian much in the same way that da Vinci was Florentine, but today he is known as Italian just like Copernicus is Polish. Calling him Prussian today in the primary descriptor is not even a minority viewpoint in published sources. You don't agree that the majority viewpoint in published sources, the NPOV, is "Polish astronomer"? Astronomer28 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astro - "You don't agree that the majority viewpoint in published sources, the NPOV, is "Polish astronomer"?" - Remember that WP is not about what is right or wrong. It is about what is in the published documents (either silence, or "Polish" or "it doesn't make any sense to talk about it)... and about wp:consensus. Who is right or who is wrong cannot be determined by WP, and really does not matter. I encourage you to remove your focus from the editors and their opinions and focus on the content. This is about reaching consensus about the content of an article. I believe his ethnicity / nationality and the squabble about them are overcovered, and not one belongs in the lead. Neither has anything to do with what he did... they don't identify him... there aren't 12 famous ones in various nations in that era. Therefore there is no need for it in wp:Lead. It is contentious, and makes the article unstable due to wp:TE by various groups or individuals. Since it isn't about him at all, but about those squabbling, there is no need for it in WP.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if there's a misunderstanding, I agree with you completely - let's focus on what's in published documents and that's what I've been pointing out. Based on that, it's pretty clear that the NPOV is that Copernicus is a "Polish astronomer". That may be contentious here, but it is a fact. Some people may not like that fact and altercate here even if there is no squabble in published sources today. We shouldn't avoid putting forth a solid majority position (in published sources) just because it makes some people uncomfortable.Astronomer28 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"let's focus on what's in published documents and that's what I've been pointing out" - No, it really isn't. You have been pointing out your choice of POV among the published documents. This is covered (way overcovered) in the article already. They tenerally say: either silence, or "Polish" or "it doesn't make any sense to talk about it".

We shouldn't put 1 PoV into the lead just because it makes some people comfortable. And we won't, for long. If there are other reasons this 1 PoV needs to be put in the wp:lead, and most importantly into sentence one, then perhaps we will, if wp:consensus is reached. But I have not read any single argument for that. Not one. "A majority of the published sources I cite have my choice of PoV in them!" is not an argument that supports inclusion in the lead, in and of itself. Unfriend13 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, I am not shy about my position and I have been pushing it because it's factually correct. I have shown proof that the NPOV is "Polish astronomer". If you don't agree, please provide proof it's not. Omitting nationality is a POV as much as including it (see my post below). RE: nationality discussion, it makes sense to discuss it here as we're doing it, but it's not being discussed by scholars today and not mentioned in most sources. IMO it's interesting and should be left intact, but statements like "[...]whether, in fact, it is meaningful to ascribe to him a nationality in the modern sense." does not belong unless it's in every other article on Renaissance figures, and the minority POV should be made clear per WP:NPOV. Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would also be factually correct to change the sentence one to say "He was a dying bag of contaminated water that stalked the earth fouling the environment, supporting the murder of helpless militants, releasing foul odors and making strange vocalizations." but it would not be useful.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astronomer28: Returning to the same edits soon after returning from an edit warring block is not good practice. There is a solid consensus that this article should not proclaim the subject's "nationality", and particularly not in the lead. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs yet it appears that in five years your entire focus has been to assert that Copernicus was Polish. Continuing down that path would be disruptive and may lead to a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why this keeps coming back is simple. Copernicus' nationality is not subject to any kind of dispute in the sources. There are two kinds of sources out there when it comes to this question - those which refer to him as a "Polish astronomer" and those which simply omit any discussion of nationality. You basically cannot find any modern source which refers to him as a "German astronomer" - at least not since Nazi era publications. Wikipedia is actually weird in that regard since it widely departs from other standard reference works such as Britannica. So to the extent people keep noticing that, they will keep bringing it up.

The <No nationality in the lede> thing - what is the origin of that? Best as I can tell after going through the archives it was essentially a sop to several very vocal POV pushing editors (most of whom have been banned or topic banned since then, and they even had their sockpuppets banned too) to help make the article stable and end the perennial headache of pointless discussions. But honestly, most of these folks caused all kinds of other trouble and just because at one point Wikipedia was trying to "compromise" with these people doesn't mean that their preferred version should stay. Why exactly is it not controversial to say Kepler was a "German astronomer" but it's not allowed to say that Copernicus was a Polish one? At the very least, let's remove the "German astronomer" from the Kepler article and put the <No nationality in the lede> notice there too.

To be more specific, yes, Copernicus' ethnicity, or his mother tongue or whatever, can be seen as controversial. But not his nationality. That's pretty clear. He was a Polish citizen, soldier and minister. This goes back to the dawn of Wikipedia when user H.J. was aggressively pushing the POV that Royal Prussia was never part of Poland but an independent state "under Polish protection". This was total nonsense that had/has no backing in sources and this user was the first one ever to be indef banned (by Jimbo, for this stuff, plus associated sketchy POV pushing like Holocaust denial). Why exactly is current practice in this article based on pleasing this long-banned user? Volunteer Marek 23:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Luther (1483-1546), who termed Copernicus (1473-1543) a "Sarmatian [i.e., a Polish] fool", was Copernicus' near-exact contemporary. Yet Wikipedia calls Luther a "German monk", though there would be no unitary German state for over 300 more years, until 1871 — while arbitrarily denying the Polishness of Copernicus, loyal citizen of a Polish state that, by the time of his birth, had already existed for 500 years. Where is the logic? If "people back then did not think in terms of nationality", then let's strike "German" from the description of Luther (whom, by the way, history has proven the actual fool). Nihil novi (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing the Martin Luther article because one personally has a strong point of view about another would be wp:tendentious editing, and would probably result in a quick warning, and do no good whatsoever. The wp:other stuff exists argument is not useful in bringing about consensus. I suggested alternatives that would obviate the need to claim nationality, yet make it clear he was born/raised/lived/whatever in what is now Poland if a consensus appears that we need this in the lead.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the point about Martin Luther. And "WP:Other stuff exists" says, among other things: "When used correctly, though, these comparisons are important, as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

There may, however, be merit to your proposal for the Copernicus lead ("make it clear he was born/raised/lived/whatever in what is now Poland"). I invite you to try your hand. Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion was me trying my hand. So far, no one thinks this is a great idea. It certainly does not have wp:consensus, and should not be edited in at this point. I see one (yourself) saying it "may have some merit". I remain of the opinion that this matter of nationality/race/ethnicity/geography does not belong in the lead at all, see wp:lead. It is not needed to explain who he is, it is not an important part of why he is widely known. It is of importance to nationalists/racists/etc., and not to WP.Unfriend13 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, actually I last posted on this topic in 2008, but even if that had been true - even if I devote all my time to Copernicus' nationality - that is my prerogative and it has no relation to the facts/NPOV. Whether 1% or 100% of my edits are related to Copernicus' nationality has no bearing on the NPOV. It's the facts that matter as you point out in WP:RGW. Based on recent comments, I don't see how there is a consensus, much less a solid one. I do agree with your first sentence however. Astronomer28 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that Copernicus/Kopernik was of Polish nationality and mixed ethnicity. His father had hailed from Cracow. Nicolaus was born and died in the Kingdom of Poland, he served his works to the Polish king. Keep fighting for the truth on (sometimes biased) Wikipedia, ye brave Poles! 109.76.146.18 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Astronomer28: The true measure of consensus is what is accepted by the many experienced editors who are watching this article, and who have been satisfied for a long time with the current lead that does not attempt to assign a nationality. SPAs often think that the issue that concerns them is unusual. However, experienced editors have seen it all before as there are many articles which have attracted the attention of enthusiasts wanting to promote their favorite nationality. Wikipedia should not be used for that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me summarize the situation as I see it
Position 1
no nationality
supported by group A
supported by X number of reliable, published sources

Position 2
"Polish astronomer"
supported by group B (myself included)
supported by Y number of reliable, published sources

Group A doesn't agree with Position 2 and Group B doesn't agree with Position 1. If Position 2 is adopted, it will not be agreeable to Group A. If Position 1 is kept, it is not agreeable to Group B. So which position should be adopted? Obviously, it seems to me, the position that is supported by the number of reliable, published sources even if group A could be slightly larger than group B in number (which I don't think is the case).Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It often seems that our own point of view is obviously correct. However, WP runs on wp:consensus, and the only thing obvious is that there is an old consensus, that a group of editors is attempting to change the consensus by force because they believe they are "right". It does not matter if neither group a nor group b ever gets any part of what they want. They may both wind up very unhappy. Unfriend13 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

Copernicus - Europe's Earth Observation Programme Ssadiquk (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is an external link with no specific request to edit the article present. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Portraits of Copernicus

Here's a nice resource for Portraits of Copernicus by the University of Quebec in Montreal: http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r14310/Ptolemy/Copernic/menuCopernic.html

Larkusix (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a lock?

For the moment, the relatively low-intensity-edit-warring appears restricted to the (IMO pointless and inflammatory) Nationality section. The article already wears a partial protection lock because of the squabbling about this great thinker was making the article unstable. I think, for the moment, despite the fairly pointless squabble about 1 author and source (It does not matter if we think the author is a fool or a brilliant scholar, the book publisher appears to have through more the latter than the former.) that no lock is needed, as there has been some work on the article, and a lock would stop that.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to lock only the lede? If yes that would make things easier. Larkusix (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Lark, it isn't possible. Locks are per article.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, Language, Geography

It seems clear to me that he was ethnically Polish... though I doubt that is verifiable... he was born or mainly lived in the area that essentially defines what it is to be Polish... he was intimately involved in the society and government of this "Polish" (ethnic, lingual, geographical) society. Each of these is covered (or massively over-covered) in the article. I do not think any of them approach the level of importance needed to put them in the wp:lead, much less in sentence one. I would like to leave the nationality squabble in its section, and here focus on which, if any of these 3 need to be included in the lead, and which if any need to be included in sentence 1. I, personally, have seen nothing that makes me think any of them belong in the lead at all, and certainly none in sentence 1.Unfriend13 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO all of that can be deduced from the main article, but nationality should be included in the lead because that's the standard on WP. Astronomer28 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To what standard do you refer? I have been editing since WP was a pup and know of no such document.Unfriend13 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph - "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

"In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."

As I read the opening currently, "Polish" would be an ethnicity reference, and would not belong, but stating his birth/life-region would.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". He was a citizen of Poland and showed his support many times as described in the article. It is relevant and notable which is why it's in the article in the first place. Astronomer28 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed repeatedly. Do you have a proposal?Unfriend13 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Unfriend13, I think the word "Polish" is ambiguous. It can refer to a place of origin , but also to an ethnic origin. That seems to be the main point of contention here. I think that if we would add some formulation that unambiguously refers to his place of origin without any connotation with respect to his ethnic origin, then many people would be satisfied. Copernicus ethnic orgin can then be adressed in some other section of the article, if needed. Now the question is, how to refer to his place of origin? Best regards, Larkusix Larkusix (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war of Feb 2013

I have added an "under discussion" tag to the yet-again-edit-warred-in "Polish". Please consider leaving both the "Polish" and the tag in the article. He's dead, it doesn't matter if someone calls him Polish. He can't sue, his feelings won't be hurt, his career will be unaffected. It's just another nationalist/racist edit war.Unfriend13 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I removed your tag along with my edit. I meant to keep it, but but I didn't know where to put it. Larkusix (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I struggled with the same issue, Lark... if the text "Polish" was not there where should I put the tag? All is well... I was just trying to "throw some sand on the edit war fires" to tamp them down.:)Unfriend13 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Product, process, policy, note especially " Our core principle guiding this matter is consensus." Not right or wrong or what the majority of published sources say, any deity says, any prophet says, nor how the tea leaves settle.

Also in that same article "The two most important principles after consensus are civility and not to edit-war."Unfriend13 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also added the somewhat-ugly-looking "under discussion" tag to the "other" version of the article.Unfriend13 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And it was promptly reverted right back out. Restored it one last time.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus which indeed is unfortunate. If you think there's consensus that Copernicus' nationality should be omitted, put it up for a vote. Astronomer28 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

wp:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Do you have a proposed edit to be discussed? If there seems sufficient interest in making any change at all, then the proposed changes should be discussed, and if there is no consensus (beyond the current: leave it in the body and out of the lead), then perhaps the next step would be a wp:RFC, and then eventually, a wp:!vote... which is not a vote in the traditional sense, just as wp:consensus is not consensus in the traditional sense.Unfriend13 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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 [sources here], some have noted his German ties [sources here]."

Astronomer28 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible lead changes.

I propose for discussion 2 changes. These are simply ideas, and I feel that being wp:BOLD and placing them in the article, or immediately calling for a wp:!vote is an error. There is no wp:consensus that we need to make any lead change at all, though I do think that the Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph does seem to indicate that we should. With that in mind. I am breaking these down into multiple posts for ease of comment. I most respectfully request no walls of text, as they make it amazingly difficult to follow. Please also see wp:talk and use indentation to keep replies clear.

• The 1st is to replace his death date (already in parens at sentence one) with the English-language version of his death city, Frombork. The complex details will be available readily in the infobox and in depth in the article.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The 2nd is to replace "One of the great polymaths of the Renaissance, " at the start P3 with "Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland, Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of the Renaissance."Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Purists may argue that this should simply be in paragraph 1. Indeed, I would argue the entire lead is actually only P1 of the "real" lead.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, your proposals don't address the disputed items: the omission of "Polish" in the first paragraph of the header and the neutrality of the Nationality section. Please see my post below re: dispute resolution. Astronomer28 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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)