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, some do not ascribe nationality, and others have noted his German ties.

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible lead changes.

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

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

In the actual event, I decided I simply didn't wp:like this change, and I did not do it. I don't object, but I don't want to take the date out.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Polish" and the "Nationality" section have nothing whatsoever to do with this talk page section which is about the 2 proposed changes I am considering. My aim is to meet Wikipedia:Nationality#Opening_paragraph. Please focus (edit to add: in this section) on this proposed pair of changes. Is there any comment you would like to make? It does not address either of the issues you raise, and is not related to either.Unfriend13 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• - If there are no objections (other than "It doesn't address my issue"), I expect to make this change on Saturday.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfriend13, thanks for making constructive suggestions. One problem with your second proposal - it says "Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland...". That kind of wording however suggests that it wasn't in northern Poland THEN (i.e. 1473). But of course it was, since 1466, or even 1454. So how about omitting the "what is now" part? Volunteer Marek 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, then it would behoove us to change the body and infobox to say that it was in Poland. I was trusting that the stable parts of the article were correct... as the header must rest entirely on them as it should have no refs within it.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Prussia,Kingdom of Poland is the current infobox, just for example.Unfriend13 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else exactly needs to be changed. "Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland" is pretty much like saying "Alabama, United States".Volunteer Marek 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am too ignorant of eastern Europe to know that, sorry, if more knowledgeable editors are content that we can say "Poland" based on "Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland", then it is sure fine with me.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Born in the ancient city of Thorn, in what is now northern Poland, (...)"? I smell a nationalist German [PA redacted - WMC]. First of all, the name of the city is Toruń. And whether it is ancient or not (maybe not that ancient as Persepolis...) has nothing to do or influence of Copernicus' later deeds. Reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎109.76.191.245 (talk • contribs)

As I read it, it has different names. But in this context, I think it should be Torun, though I'm open to correction William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Being an ignorant American, I don't know how to type the "n" you are using. Our boring language uses a simplified character set. That said, across many sources I see "Toruń(Thorn)" sometimes and "Torun(Thorn)" sometimes and "Torun". I see no one calling it "Thorn"... so it looks like in boringAmerican it should be, indeed, "Torun".Unfriend13 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So first, IP 109, personal attacks and nonconstructive comments are not really helping here. Let's assume good faith. Second, it's really not so much Thorn vs. Torun (but yes, it should be Torun), but the fact that <whatever you want to call the city> was in Poland at the time, not just "what is now Poland". The phrasing "ancient city" is actually sort of weird and probably should be dropped. I expect that part has some origin in some irrelevant and silly debate from long time ago as well. Again, I don't really see that anything else needs to be changed (dropping "Royal Prussia" and "Bishopric of Warmia" from the infobox might make sense - though that's sort of whether or not people should be described as from "Dothan, Alabama, United States" or just "Dothan, United States" kind of issue) and other than that the proposal seems fine.Volunteer Marek 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am proposing only changes to the lead, not to the infobox. So far, no one has objected to it. My 2 edit proposals are above. No support for either so far. :) Unfriend13 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I support the second (at least), as long as the "what is now" part is omitted.Volunteer Marek 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you did say that, and VM said something similar. I struck my screwup.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The "ancient city" bit I stole from the Toruń ariticle, and I thought it sounded elegant. Seriously, I have no dog in this fight. I only came to the article because of his birthday. :) So far, all I have seen is a nationalist/racist squabble over whether or not he was Polish, which seems ludicrous to me... he was born, helped govern, and lived much of his life in an area that pretty much defines what it is to be Polish. *shrug*Unfriend13 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Modified proposal based on more knowledgeable editors

• The 2nd is now to replace "One of the great polymaths of the Renaissance, " at the start P3 with "Born in the city of Torun, Poland, Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of the Renaissance."Unfriend13 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Alternately, we can use the actual character set of the region and make it Toruń.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-on proposal

I propose to move P3 up, appending it to P1. As above, unless there is an actual objection in terms of violation of existing wp:consensus or other guideline or new consensus against, I expect to make this change on Saturday.Unfriend13 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, not as part of my work, I think P2 should be expanded, and P3/p4 need(s) to be created, covering his other notable works (substantial).Unfriend13 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained and undiscussed revert and odd additions

The work was promptly removed, and some fairly weird text added.Unfriend13 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"who formulated Gresham's Law in the year of Thomas Gresham's birth." - was added. This does not appear in the body, and does not, therefore, belong in the lead. Unless there is some need, I will restore my edit tomorrow. Currently, we do not have anything in P1 to address the P1 need to explain who/where he was. This is a minor thing, and obviously, if every edit is going to be promptly reverted, there is no need to put it back in. I hope the reverting editor will explain in terms of WP guidelines, why the edit was reverted without discussion.Unfriend13 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Re this. I thought there was some agreement on some changes to the lede worked out above.Volunteer Marek 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gresham's law isn't even mentioned in the main body, and off course not in this discussion. The addition of Copernicus defense of Allenstein against the Teutonic knights is also not mentioned in the discussion at all (I think it's much too unimportant for the lede). Please don't claim these changes correspond with the discussion. As the initial version is the result of an intensive discussion (and a longstanding consensus), please discuss changes at first and in detail. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S.:"Some agreement on some changes" - probably, but not these changes

P.P.S.:Unfriend13 made some changes corresponding with his suggestion above ([1]), he was reverted immediately, thus it seems, the discussion has not led to a new consensus.HerkusMonte (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gresham's law most certainly IS mentioned in the main body. It would be quite weird if it was omitted. And yes, I think it's important enough for the lede, as is Copernicus' military career. It shows that he was more than an astronomer, but a true Renaissance man.Volunteer Marek 08:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*As yet, no explanation of why my edit was reverted. Would the reverting editor please respond? Otherwise I will restore it. I will leave the "Gresham's law" (and I have no idea why it did not appear on my search of the text, it is there) as a para of its own, at the bottom of the lead, for the edit warriors to squabble over. And WAY below the level of importance to make it into the wp:lead. Unless there is a WP-guideline-based objection, or a wp:consensus, I expect to restore the edits I made to P1, leaving the rest of the edit-war material in place.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For me the removing of Copernicus nationality (or citizenship, or loyalty to Poland - his place of birth and living) is continuation of Nazi Germany propaganda/conspiracy attempting to deprive Poland very important part of heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.16.8 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway,

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

2. Agree with Nihili

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

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

For me the removing of Copernicus nationality (or citizenship, or loyalty to Poland - his place of birth and living) is continuation of Nazi Germany propaganda/conspiracy attempting to deprive Poland very important part of heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.16.8 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nazi role in nationalism dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...well, "nobody" is saying that, despite those historians arguing that he was in fact more German than Polish.[3] The Point is that Copernicus' nationality has for a long time been a source of argument between Germans and Poles: "Viewed in Poland as one of the nation's greatest figures, Germans also consider the man to be one of their own."[4]. Neat solution: The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, for example, which is an important German research funding organization and the largest such organization in Europe, together with the Foundation for Polish Science do bestow the "Copernicus Award" every two years to two researchers, one in Germany and one in Poland, for outstanding achievements in German-Polish scientific cooperation.[5] --IIIraute (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Copernicus on Google search

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV in nationality section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

before Gresham

If you really insist on a source for the phrase "before Gresham" - which is pretty inane as it's a non-controversial fact - it's easy to find. For example [8].Volunteer Marek 20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

World Book Encyclopedia

In Norway, Nicolaus Copernicus was a Polish astronomer.

The World Book Encyclopedia:

"Copernicus, Nicolaus, a Polish astronomer, developed the theory that Earth is a moving planet." [9] I hope this will be helpful for you !!! Bye. --2.33.180.52 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: rewrite of the nationality section

This article has been hounded by nationalist disputes for many years with probably Megabytes of pure discussion on the talk page. These wars slowly decreased and for three years the article was almost free of these petty wars and a version that was accepted by both sides became stable. In February however, the account User:Astronomer28 wrote a new version of the nationality section and seeks to establish his new version with reverting, arguing that it was shorter. I believe that his version seeks to misrepresent the entire dispute, removes reliable sources and is intentionally biased. He claimed that only his version would be NPOV [10] "because the NPOV is that he was Polish" [11]. The Copernicus article was a good article nominee with a more elaborate nationality section. In my opinion the previous version of the section should continue to be used or be modified without attempts to advance a POV. --walkee^talkee 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Even though I am not involved in this dispute at all, I would obviously support the previous version per Walkee. The core fundamental policy we must keep in mind is WP:NPOV. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think the longer version is preferable, although it can use expansion from other sources. I plan on adding refs from Polski Słownik Biograficzny in a near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  

I am not against a longer version, but not in this Wikipedia entry. I am also definitely not advancing a POV. Please see my post above with references to encyclopedias, popular books and textbooks. I don't think I could find a single one that mentioned any nationality dispute, which however is sometimes mentioned in very history-specific books. In other words, everything else about Copernicus is much more important. IMO the debate is also important, but I propose putting it in a separate article as previously proposed by Walkee and Nihil novi. Astronomer28 (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-dispute resolution request proposal

I am putting forth a proposal which IMO best represents the NPOV (please read if you haven't; neutrality does not mean omitting nationality). I hope we can finally resolve these long-standing issues. If not, I suggest a Dispute Resolution Request.

1) Header -> "Polish Renaissance mathematician and astronomer" (or "Polish Renaissance astronomer and mathematician"). The NPOV is that Copernicus was Polish (sources listed further up on the Talk page by myself and others); if you have proof showing otherwise, please provide it.

2) Nationality section moved to a new article as previously suggested by Walkee and Nihil novi, and listed under "See also:". A comprehensive article would be much more useful because:
a) the current version is not commensurate with the length of the entry,
b) more information and sources can be provided,
c) it will move the debate somewhere else (and hopefully cause it to die down a bit).

(Quick note: HerkusMonte is again pushing for a sockpuppet investigation of me and someone actually banned me from further edits; I am presently asking for my editing privileges to be restored.) Astronomer28 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)