Talk:Johannes Hevelius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk of 2003[edit]

In 1611 Gdansk was a Part of Poland not Germany and its name was Gdansk not Danzig. It wasnt Danzig till after the Partitons of Poland, So will some of you people stop renaming it. And Jan Heweliusz was Polish and dedicated his first book to Sobieski and the Polish Crown.

See: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommiec (talkcontribs) 04:41, 2 October 2003

We use current names on Wikipedia.Vancouverguy 03:42, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Danzig was a free republic, contrary to Polish Propaganda lies.

Current Name[edit]

And the Current name is Gdansk so stop renaming it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommiec (talkcontribs) 04:44, 2 October 2003

The Britannica lists Gdansk: 04:31, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

City was refrenced as Gdansk in 1611 then it became Danzig not as the page is currently stated see biography: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:58, 2 October 2003

He wouldn't be renaming it if it hadn't been part of your "program" to change all Danzig's to Gdansk's without explanation. You're better off explaining your changes, that way when they are not incorrect they won't be reverted -- Someone else 03:57, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Only changed the names to when it was a Part of Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:33, 2 October 2003

As I said, it is best to give reasons for making a change when you make it, at least in the edit summary. That's what it's there for. By the way, you can sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~: they'll be converted to your username and the date when you save the page. Someone else 04:02, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius Polonus[edit]

John Hevelius was Polish astronomer in non stricte ethnical sense - see Mikołaj Kopernik casus. He was Polish citizen, supported by Polish king. See also casus of G.F. Händel who had German origins but he was British.


The article was based on Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which asserts that Hevelius was German.[1] The next day, after someone tried to assert him as Polish, someone else reckognised the conflict and left out the nationality[2], in line with WP:NPOV. Nevertheless battles ensued. As you can speak German a little, you might want to have a look at a page from Das Erste for German-Polish affairs [3]. (Roughly translated) "Like in the case of Nicolaus Copernicus, Hevelius' nationality, too, was disputed. Germans put forward Hevelius' ancestry and language, Poles his reverend loyalty to the Polish kings. Today - at least in science - other tones prevail." At the very least it explains why the web contains several sources that either attribute him as German or as Pole. To argue which of the two nationalities should be asserted is what WP:NPOV tries to prevent. These two point of views, which in Hevelius' time probably didn't conflict one another, can be fairly described in Wikipedia ... or left out. As his nationality is not his most famous attribute, (and because it is easy to do this) I'd suggest to simply exclude it. Sciurinæ 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The modern Britannica however clearly states that he was Polish[4], and updated source take precedence over outdated ones. I don't understant why information on country of birth is being deleted. Both Scinurea and Matthead seem to be obsessed with determing ethnic bloodlines, instead of acccepting that countries were mutltiethnic and a Polish astronemer could have ethnic Jewish, Lithuanian,Ormanian,German roots, it is irrelevant as long as he was a Polish citizen belonging to Polish culture. --Molobo 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I've said it all before: the policy WP:NPOV will not be replaced with a redirect to Britannica. You cannot deny there are two (or more) different point of views here. Even an "argument" that one POV is far more frequent than the other cannot really be applied here (cf. 'Hevelius "Polish astronomer"' 'Hevelius "German astronomer"'). And Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not even redirect to Wikipedia:Majority point of view, either. So it is safe to assume that NPOV is still enforced.
The "modern Britannica"? Its article on Hevelius makes no mention of nationality. So you had to find another loophole to get your message across that the astronomer belongs to your nation. Well, you picked another article of the current Britannica that says Hevelius was Polish. But omniscient Britannica is not only inconsistent as to whether or not to attribute a nationality to Hevelius — in another current article of the encyclopedia, they said he was "German". [5]
So which point of view is correct? Finding that out is not the job of a wikipedia talk page. In articles POVs are to be "presented fairly, but not asserted". You can adopt whatever POV you like in your mind (yes, even that Matthead and I were "obsessed with determing ethnic bloodlines"[sic]). But in Wikipedia, don't try to impose that view. Merci d'avance! Sciurinæ 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are unable to distinguish between culture and ethnicity. --Molobo 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo has to be a joke, right? He/she can't possibly be for real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:45, 23 June 2006

Hevelius was not Polish by family, language and s.o. The fabrication that Danzig belonged to Poland is completely non-historical. Danzig was always a free Republic.

Stop edit-warring about Danzig/Gdańsk issues here and let Johannes Hevelius rest in peace![edit]

Discuss Danzig/Gdańsk issues on pages covering the history of the city, not in biographies like this here. -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Hevelius, Danzig[edit]

Google book search brings up 174 books with Hevelius Gdansk and over 600 with (Johannes) Hevelius Danzig


'A Halophänonem was observed by many in Danzig...'  : May I enquire what, precisely, a 'halophänonem' is? --Nalco 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a contradiction?[edit]

The following is written on Tycho Brahe's page:

"Tycho was the last major astronomer to work without the aid of a telescope, soon to be turned toward the sky by Galileo."

while this article states:

"He (Hevelius) is thus considered the last astronomer to do major work without lenses."

I think that this should be resolved. Since Hevelius clearly did his work after Tycho's death, it would appear that the claim for T. is a bit of an exaggeration. H. did use telescopes, but not for his positional observations. Michael Daly 20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is no contradiction. Hevelius did a large part of his works without lenses. The lenses from which his telescopes were constructed, were probably bad, so despite comstructing large lens telescopes, he had to measure up star positions with lensless instruments. BTW: The Tycho sentence is unclear: he was the last major astronomer that didn't use telescopes, ever! (?). ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Some translation of the plaque might be nice...


Dear Poeticbent, I was neither involved nor knew that Hevelius had been put into the see-also section at Category:German astronomers until today. I'd disapprove of that in that the same should have been done with the Category:Polish astronomers and approve in that it is a better idea than asserting him into that group as really a German (Polish). Since you have now done the same with the Polish astronomer cat, meaning there is absolutely no current double standard in that regard, you needn't have solely put in that cat again to point out in the edit summary that there had been a double standard, thus also creating one. See the old talk on his nationality (above) and couple it with the thought that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." (Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines). That said, I undid the undiscussed introduction of the category again. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the sneaky attempts at inserting often incorrect Polish categories.

Also, several people at Wikipedia persistently keep re-adding wrong country Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth [6] , [7], [8] as country for Danzig.

That is incorrect. Danzig was in the country of Prussia or (Royal Prussia). Prussians from eastern Prussia (Ducal Prussia, East Prussia) held in common with people from western (Royal Prussia, West Prussia) ius indigenatus - citizens of Prussia status (not Polish). MfG 8 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:44, 9 January 2008

Royal Prussia was a province within Poland, not a country. --Molobo (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems he actually was a German speaking citizen of a Hanseatic city under the Polish king. What was he then? A Polish German or a German Polish? Seems that there's some foundation for both opinions. Equal share maybe? ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it depends upon your definition of "German". There's probably some arguments for both sides. It might be easier just to say he was a German-Polish astronomer or a Danzig astronomer. We've got plenty of articles on prominent astronomers who have multiple nationalities.—RJH (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Among his works:

Prodromus astronomiae (1690), his posthumously published catalog of 1564 stars. Its value was much impaired by his preference of the antique pinnules to telescopic sights on quadrants. This led to an acrimonious controversy with Robert Hooke[citation verily verily needed]

The oddity is that the posthumously published catalog would be available to Hooke only after the death ("posthumously") of Hevelius. What was such a stupid theoretical controversy about, and with whome did Hooke quarrel? Elisabeth? Was then Hooke stupid enough to quarrel about not using telescopes with a quality that didn't exist under the life time of Hevelius? The sentence might be true, since some absurdities actually occur, but it is so odd that it needs some citations. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The "acrimonious controversy" was Hooke complaining about Hevelius not using a telescopic sight for much more accurate measurements. The "factoid" is out of place:
"(Hevelius) was involved in a dispute with Hooke over whether his observations made with instruments without telescopic sights were of any value. This dispute began when Hooke read Hevelius's Machina Coelestis (1673). As well as giving details of his observations, Hevelius described his methods of using naked eye observations for positions of celestial objects. Of course Hooke was right, in that the future of astronomy was to use instruments with telescopic sights, which led to considerably more accurate coordinates."[9]
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see. And I agree it is (was!) kind of out of place here, although your info relates to an interesting issue of the use of optics or not. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the crap that never ends[edit]

Uh, ok, look, it's not that hard. [10] (and I'm not talking about the Tin Drum). Since HM put in 5 "he was German sources" I could go in and put in 6 or more "he was Polish sources". Then HM could come back and add a few more. And I could add a few more. Then Matthead and others would revert etc. etc. etc. And it would be a complete waste of time.

So how about 1 source per nationality, noting that he is referred to one way in some and another in others, and maybe even note that some sources use both [11]. Otherwise this is just gonna become another silly episode in an already silly story.radek (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It should be possible to mention, "some call him German and some Polish" instead of removing the "German astronomer" cat and adding "he was a Polish (and only Polish) astronomer". I don't care about the number of sources as long as both views are mentioned, which seems to be a problem[12]. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
By policies it should be avoided in the intro. It is OK, as it is now, mentioning his name in German and Polish, but these modern exercises of nationality, expecially these foolish German vs. Polish antagonism is very off-topic, since it was not an important issue in the 17th and 18th centuries! His works were published in Latin, does it make him Roman citizen? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Another reflection: it seems to me that there are citations in German that in a way tries to indicate that he was of German nationality. Now, if he was a polyglot of many languages, perhaps addressing a German friend, what language would he use? He was a Beerbrewish Astronomian from the Gdanzig, by High Jove! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Career" = Astronomy[edit]

The former section Career renamed to Astronomy is a little too fragmented by small paragraphs. Is it maybe possible to merge some of them? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


I've looked around but can find no indication that a plaque with the inscription as previously given in the article actually exists, though I guess it might have at one point in time. For example, here's a relevant google image search: [13].

On the other hand, there are plaques like this and this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly the supposed plaque text was added in by our friend the banned IP [14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

Re this: this is the same exact source as the 1995 Michael Bakchik source, that's why it was removed. It's just at two different urls on the intranets. This is just padding the "German sources" list.

Re this: attribution is obviously to the author, not publisher. If Random House publishes something that does not make that something the opinion of Random House. Attribute it properly and let's not engage in mind reading original research about what the esteemed Royal Society "really thinks" about this issue.

Re this: show me how many other scientists who are not subject to Polish-German dispute, or some other ethnic dispute, have their religion prominently marked in the first sentence of their article's lede. Kepler? Nope. Geiger? Nope. Leibniz? Nah. So why single out poor ol' Hevelius? Come on, we both know that 1) at the time religion was indeed not a very good marker of nationality/ethnicity but that 2) readers will tend to associate certain religions with certain nationalities but not others. This "protestant" business was put in there by the anon IP or some other editor like that, because they couldn't get their way and put "German" in there. You want to discuss his religion somewhere in the body of the article, that's fine. But it has no place - or relevance - in the first sentence of the lede. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Especially the second half of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century - the times of great wars with a religious background and many refugees for religious reasons - were times, where the question Catholic or Protestant in Central Europe was often of an extreme importance, which is not so imaginable today. The religious background, of course, should also be mentioned in the article of Kepler. (It's just a quick thought, which crossed my mind, whether Hevelius family could perhaps also have come to Danzig for religious reasons in this time.) Henrig (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
the times of great wars with a religious background and many refugees for religious reasons - were times, where the question Catholic or Protestant in Central Europe was often of an extreme importance - not in Poland (more precisely, to a far lesser extent in Poland than other parts of Europe). But hmmm, yes, perhaps you're right that the Hewelkes moved from Bohemia to Poland for religious reasons, in which case I guess it would be more pertinent (though still, don't think it really needs to be in the first sentence of the lede). Know of any sources which discuss this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It was a quick thought, which crossed from some broader knowledge about the time, without any special knowledge about the family of Hevelius. Henrig (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You removed, a joint project of the Royal Society and the University of Sussex's Newton Project, how this could be "the same source" as a book by Michael Bachik is a mystery to me.
A book titled "A short history of the Royal Society" published by the Royal Society is not just representing the authors opinion but obviously the Royal Society's "official" view. A modern homepage of a town does not mirror the views of the Mr. Smith who wrote that stuff, but the "official" view of the town administration.
His religion isn't disputed and thus not a matter of POV. Do you seriously want to remove an info because it's missing at other articles too? That some people have prejudices isn't a reason to conceal an information. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: [15] - there's always a number of ways to spell a particular name - in this case the name "John" - in a particular language. Including all the possible variants of the German spelling is simply WP:UNDUE. Why not include all the possible Polish variants? This is just more of the same "include as much German as possible in a En-wiki article" territory marking. And again, this is stuff that was inserted into the article by long-banned users.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of logic is this? There's only one Polish version of his name, so the Germans "deserve" also just one variant? We are not talking about different versions of "Johannes" but about different ways to spell his familyname, which was Latinised to "Hevelius" [16] (even the Polish Academy of Sciences mentions variants [17]). HerkusMonte (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not about deserving. It's about established standards. We usually don't enter any different spellings in the lead, because that is unnecessary and undue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There's only one Polish version of his name There are several. Janusz and Janko are also known. There is no reason for possibly variant of spelling to be inserted and I will move it to group note in order to clean up the lead.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


The problem with this [18] is that it's not entirely correct. Yes, obviously, "Hevelius" is a Latinization of ... some variant of the guy's name. But it's simply very dubious as to what is actually latnizing. I dunno, is there a record of his father's name? Back in those days there were no such things as birth certificates (and if there were, they were in Latin), no national ids (and if there had been, it would've been in Polish) and no standardized single names that somebody went by. Basically, he went under all these names so "Hevelius" is a latinization of all of them.

The way the section is written it also seems to marginalize the "Polish" name presenting it apart from others and labeling it as in Polish - no such thing is done for "in German known as Johann" or "in German known as Höfelcke". That needs to be changed also.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just what sources say about him, and yes, Moore explicitely says it's a latinisation of "Hewelcke" (with a "c"). If you know other sources claiming other variations of his name you might add them. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


What is this JPG File doing? Dadofsam (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Is there any actual substance to these latest edits [19]? The text is essentially the same except anything mentioning Poland is moved to the bottom and the claim about his German (Bohemian actually) father is added. This appears to be just a "Hevelius was a German astronomer!" kind of edit, not particularly useful.Volunteer Marek 13:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there is very little substance in the claim of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which was put at the beginning of the section, as if it was most significant. Interestingly, no other reference for the etymology of the original name being "Hawk" in any other language is given. In contrast, the German origin of "Hewelcke" is well documented, as is the fact that Hevelius was speaking German, his mother tongue, while he learned Polish later on. His "Bohemian" origin does not mean that his family was not German; in fact many Germans/Austrian lived in Bohemia, which was under Habsburg rule since 1526. Is it not obvious that you are just editing in the sense of "Hevelius was a Polish astronomer!"? Also the overemphasis on the Polish rule in Danzig/Gdansk at that time in the article is strange. This city was mostly inhabited by Germans, and basically an autonomus republic.--Discordion (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The idea that "there is very little substance" is your own. I'll take the word of an Academy of Sciences, Polish though it may be, over some anonymous guy's on the internet. Also, the idea that the name derives from Hawke and that it has German roots are not mutually exclusive. I have no idea why you think it does.Volunteer Marek 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, no English transcript of the Polish document is available and the dubious Polish "Hawk" etymology has not been discussed by scholars. So far, you are as anonymous a person as everyone else here in the internet and certainly not an authority, guardian or owner of this article content. I have given the "German Biography" webpage as source and reference, which is reliable and based on historical facts in contrast to your mere assertions. Thus, I only can recommend that you prove your statements or remove the Polish bias from this article.--Discordion (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I may be anonymous but the Polish Academy of Sciences is not. The fact that you can't access an English transcript is beside the point. There's no policy which prohibits the use of non-English sources (which would disqualify your German source as well, btw).
What you have given a reference for is the fact that Hevelius' father was named "Abraham Hewelcke", which is already in the article. That's not under dispute. Your source says nothing about the etymology of the name however.
And no, I have not made a "mere assertion". The relevant reference supports the claim. And there's no Polish bias here, sorry.Volunteer Marek 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the current Wikipedia policy concerning foreign language sources: "1. When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. 2. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." I do propose that you cite and translate the respective paragraph of the "Polish Academy of Sciences" accordingly. A second reference from an English source would do as well. It would be clarifying, if references 4, 8 (the link is ridicluous), 10, 13-15, 20-23, 27, and 28 were handled the same way. Discordion (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

[20]: "Pochodzilo ono w zasadzie od Hawke - jastrzab, Hewelke - jastrzabek, sam zas uczony uzywal go w zlatynizowanej zawsze postaci, Hevelius, a w spolszczonej, Heweliusz".
Translation: "(The name) came essentially from Hawke - falcon, Hewelke - falconet, while the scientist himself generally used the Latinized form, Hevelius, or in the Polonized form, Heweliusz". If you want you can change "falcon" to "hawk" and "falconet" to "little hawk".
I don't see anything ridiculous (sic) about reference 8. As for the other references, are you actually disputing something, or are you just trying to make me jump through some hoops for no good reason? Volunteer Marek 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, seemingly, this "Hawk" etymology is described in the book, although the context is not clear and the original source, perhaps a register of births, remains unaccounted for. The Google books reference link is fragmentary; it does not even comprise a full sentence. Altogether, the Polish references I have mentioned are currently worthless, since they do not fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia and there is no way for anyone who does not speak/read Polish to verify it. It would be nice, if you could provide the respective translations and include it in the article. Discordion (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The references, including this one DO fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia. As to translations, let me ask again, are you actually disputing something in the text or just trying to waste my time? Volunteer Marek 14:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
And since a number of the references you're complaining about simply reference name versions, you don't actually need to speak Polish to verify. You should be perfectly able to copy-paste the work title, put it in google books and do some searching and verification of your own. It's pretty straight forward.Volunteer Marek 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Danzig (Gdańsk)[edit]

This issue was settled nine years ago, as follows:

Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793 —
Votes for Danzig: 46 (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)
Votes for Gdańsk: 36 (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting)
The name used in Wikipedia to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 is Danzig....

Alas, since then we've been a resurgence in changing all mentions of Danzig to Gdańsk — ostensibly on the basis of the city's political alignment with the Polish Crown after 1466 — without reference to the city's ethnic and linguistic character at the time in question.

It's evident from reading details of Hevelius's life that German was his first language, and that, like any good 17th century intellectual, he used Latin professionally. One American source, the Galileo Project [21] identifies his nationality as "German (as Danzig was)," but adds that after graduation from the Danzig Gymnasium in 1624, he was "sent to a school ... near Bromberg (now Bydgoszcz, Poland), to acquire fluency in Polish" (my emphasis). [22] From these and other factors we see that Hevelius was a typical upper-class citizen of 17th century Danzig, a city of predominantly German (and Lutheran) character situated in a region controlled politically and heavily influenced by (Catholic) Poland.

We must bear in mind that in Hevelius's day nationality, particularly in northeastern Europe, was sometimes nebulous — but in the Vistula Delta area there were definite differences in language and culture, the history of which should not be obscured by simplistic modern ethnocentrism. Sca (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the Gdansk vote is pretty unambiguous, however continuously ignored. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Gdansk vote" - a discussion that took place freakin' fifteen years ago is completely irrelevant. It is not nor ever was policy or even a guideline. The appropriate guideline is Wikipedia's naming convention and manual of style. Did Wikipedia even have infoboxes when the Gdansk discussion took place? If not then how can it possibly apply to that. Did the sources change in the fifteen freakin' years since the Gdansk discussion? If so, then that's an additional reason not to care about it.

If you think that you can hide behind the Gdansk vote in order to carry out your edit wars, or to engage in nationalistic POV pushing, that's your prerogative. I very strongly doubt that others will see it the same way.

(and btw, you're even misinterpreting the Gdansk vote in these edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of calendar you use, mine still shows July 2015 and NO, the Gdansk vote was not discussed "freakin' fifteen years ago". I'm not going to answer your further polemics and personal attacks, the Gdansk vote is an established procedure to avoid such lame editwars you just started over several of my latest edits. To deliberately ignore WP:CONSENSUS is certainly not a good idea. However, I'll leave your beloved "Gdansk" in the infobox, in correct chronology for that era, off course.HerkusMonte (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't nor ever was policy. It's outdated like hell. It's irrelevant. And its abuse, like we have here, only sparks edit wars, rather than prevents them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Danzig was the the of this free republican City , which was never Polish at the time. All fabrications of Polish Propaganda have been revealed and will always be eliminated.

How can Hevelius have used a sextant before it was invented? ...[edit]

As you can read in the article:

"His observatory, instruments and books were destroyed by fire on September 26, 1679. The catastrophe is described in the preface to his Annus climactericus (1685). He promptly repaired the damage enough to enable him to observe the great comet of December 1680. He named the constellation Sextans in memory of these lost instruments.

His health had suffered from the shock of the 1679 fire, and he died on his 76th birthday, January 28, 1687."

Well, we can compare dates with the article on the sextant:

"(...) a glazier in Philadelphia. John Bird made the first sextant in 1757."

I'm trying to understand this inconsistency, but also take the opportunity to leave the question here, where I think clarification may be useful. (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok...sorry about this. Now I uderstand there is no contradiction: Hevelius sextant and the constellation he created based on his instrument was an astronomical sextant. (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There would be less confusion if a sentence like the following one had been used: "The modern sextant was invented by John Hadley and Thomas Godfrey independently". JmCor (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)