Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 25 April 2006

History of Science Unassessed

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please visit /Nationality to read and contribute to discussions regarding Copernicus' nationality – thank you!

Archives
January 2004 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006

Some messages concerning Copernicus

On Polish Misplaced Pages Board http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Nicolaus_Copernicus_2

Nicolaus Copernicus

We have a troll denying he was Polish. Usuall stuff, but some monitoring is needed before this vandal gives up and goes away.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikołaj Kopernik under attack After a lengthy debate which showed that there is no reason to doubt his nationality and vote that confirmed this one of the most active users started to delete every sentence that mentions Kopernik was Polish. He also claims that Gdańsk wasn't part of Poland but of Saxony hereDanzig Research Society --Molobo 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is copying whom This is exactly the stuff that Molobo & Co write, the part about Nazis and recent fellow travellers claim Copernicus... Is maxwellhouse in uk copying Molobo and wikipedia without giving credit to wikipedia, or what is going on ?

Poll results

A nonbinding poll was conducted to determine how the issue of Copernicus' nationality should be handled in the lead of the article. Results can be found here.

Poll summary

Note that this summary does not count questionable votes by: anonymous IP users, new users/alleged sockpuppets.

1.Polish astronomer - 13 votes

Votes: Balcer ,Space Cadet ,Molobo,Anatopism , SylwiaS ,logologist , mikka , Ak47K , Irpen , KonradWallenrod , Halibutt, Lysy, Olessi

2.No mention of nationality in the lead - 6 votes

Votes: Dagox ,David Kernow ,Matthead ,Splette ,TKE,Chris 73

3.Polish astronomer of German origin - 3 votes

Votes: De Bart,Ksenon,ragesoss

4.from $CITY - 1 vote

Votes:Agathoclea

Option 1 received 56.5% of valid votes, option 2 26.1%, option 3 13.0%, option 4 4.3%.

The most obvious misconception may be that (Misplaced Pages:Straw polls:)"Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do". Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg. "and again I remind everyone that accusations of sockpuppetry are baseless. All alleged sockpuppets were excluded from the the vote count given in the summary" If you seriously believe that Ak47K (in connection to Molobo and Space Cadet), and Anatopism and KonradWallenrod (in connection to Logologist) are genuine, Balcer, then have a look at their contributions. Also, I don't think that the opposition to reducing the question of Copernicus's nationality to him being fully Polish would be impressed that - after the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard was mobilised, which as usual had the result of the "electorate"'s being mainly of Polish nationality - it mainly voted for "Polish nationality". Sciurinæ 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you can't just call anybody who disagrees with you a sockpuppet. There are procedures on Misplaced Pages designed to deal with these types of situations. Take your concerns there. Balcer 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling anybody who disagrees with me a sock puppet. And I'm disappointed at the ineffectiveness of these "procedures" you propose (if you mean CheckUser; just some vote razzias aided not only by IP checks but developer ones and a whole new generation of sock or meatpuppets would be deterred) and finally, to me, "neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Misplaced Pages community."(Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#.22Meatpuppets.22) If you like to criticise the sceptic outlook I stated on the pwn-ed "vote", I just added the point of view which Calgacus well-described by suspecting the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard of also being "a network for Poles who wish to sway votes and decision in their favor". After three "invitations" to the article and furthermore a call to pay attention to it, the subsequent en bloc voting can be seen as a confirmation. Sciurinæ 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are conveniently forgetting that this vote was also prominently advertised on the Misplaced Pages:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, so the mirror version of your argument would be claiming the existence of a "network for Germans who wish to sway votes and decision in their favour". I personally think nationality noticeboards can be problematic, but they do exist for many nationalities and are a commonly accepted part of Misplaced Pages. Balcer 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the duration, consider guideline 4 from Misplaced Pages:Straw polls:

A deadline for the survey should be considered so as to resolve the issue in a timely manner.

So it is simply not the case that all straw polls are open ended. Rather, there is emphasis that everyone interested should be given a chance to express their opinion. When the summary was created, all the interested users seemed to have cast their vote (as no new votes were being recorded). Anyway, the archive page with the poll is still there, so anybody can still express their opinion. Balcer 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: People should not edit the archived poll, but rather express their opinion here. About the poll: I think it was sufficiently widely advertised (it still is on the German-speaking noticeboard), but many people are either (a) tired of the topic or (b) don't really care. I would personally prefer the Wrong Version over the Truth in this case (note: my expertise does not suffice to answer the question) and leave editing of this article to people interested in Copernicus, not to experts on the status of Royal Prussia, Torun, Frombork, Warmia etc., and so I didn't vote. I see no problem in accepting the vote, and also no problem in starting a new poll about this in six months and then accepting the result of that poll, whatever it may be. Kusma (討論) 14:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, since you read Misplaced Pages:Straw polls, I hope you didn't ignore how it should be enforced ("A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.") and point 3 ("Surveys should not be used for the purposes of "fact finding."). Not only was the poll seen as an enforcement, which dear Molobo confirmed when he wrote "you enforce Gdańsk vote I enforce Kopernik vote", but also can it be seen as fact finding. That his nationality is disputable, vague and divisive alone should make you doubt whether the summary of the dispute "Copernicus=Polish" would solve it and constitute a new fact. It is not Misplaced Pages's aim to decide whether for example God is a fictional or non-fictional being - only unassailable facts should be presented, like God is "believed by the majority to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence." When the professor interviewed by the Guardian wrote not too long ago that the only thing known for certain is that Copernicus was European, then you simply cannot put on historian airs and state disputable facts as truths. Have you ever read The Reasoning behind NPOV? Read it (again). The only reasonable option is thus to either leave a statement out when it doubt, or represent all views fairly at the cost of some space, but not use the "vote" as the basis for new waves of imposing the view you share like (like at Frombork) or a launch of cleverly veild but nevertheless agitative calls to arms and harassment against Matthead or me in the PWN. Sciurinæ 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I am not responsible for any actions by Molobo. When I wrote the vote summary, I prominently inserted the note that the vote is nonbinding. However, polls are not entirely meaningless either. If a given option receives only 25% of the votes, the users pushing that option should at least pause and rethink their position. Unfortunately, we have seen nothing of the kind.

As for me mentioning you on the Polish noticeboard, that was in reaction to Matthead and you fighting revert wars with comments like (no backdoor Polish POV here). Surely editors making numerous edits and reverts in that spirit can be mentioned on that noticeboard (where else?). Balcer 17:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think it unreasonable to send messages of votes into the depth of where people are possibly biased on that subject. Why the Polish forum and not the Chinese? Because Chinese people are more influenced by bias there? It does not even really matter that also the relatively new German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board was notified - it only had the result of most Poles voting for "Polish" and most German votes were split in the other options. Secondly, the mere number of voters for Polish doesn't impress me at all. Not only did I feel some months that the Polish wikipedians' noticeboard was already far larger than any other nationality board, but also are the voters' stated reasons of more importance, if not sole. If an owner of a forum creates a wikipage for its forum and invites the forum's users to create an account and engage in the page's vote for deletion, I wouldn't be impressed at the outcome similarly. Maybe it would be better for the users of either option in this vote to rethink their positions, rather than dogmatically tell the other side to do so. "Surely editors making numerous edits and reverts in that spirit can be mentioned on that noticeboard (where else?)" Yup, in the Republican party's noticeboard we should ask to "look at the contributions" of a Democrat who supposedly wants to eliminate "Republican POV". So much for incitement and exploiting national bias. Just as wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox, such boards are not a place for demagogy. Sciurinæ 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured, if you start to comment your edits as "reverting Chinese POV", I will immediately mention it on the Misplaced Pages talk:China-related topics notice board. Now please, surely you must understand that if you make statements like "revert <given group> POV" in your edit commentaries, that is potentially insulting to the members of <given group>. I would advise you to keep that in mind in the future. Balcer 20:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any such statements but don't see the maliciousness of them, either. For example, it should not be stated that Iraq is in a state of civil war just like it shouldn't be stated that it is is not. Misplaced Pages mustn't state anything controversial as fact. Honestly, read Misplaced Pages:Neutrality again, and then choose if it should redirect to Majority view or Britannica. Same with What is Enlightenment?. What we should state are the significant point point of views, not which is the "godly truth". If they cannot be stated in the lead because it would look clumsy, well, leave the nationality question out. Copernicus is not famous for being Polish, norPolish-German, nor European, nor anything but what he did for the world. Sciurinæ 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If they cannot be stated in the lead because it would look clumsy, well, leave the nationality question out I see no reason why should we leave his nationality out.No scholary argument has been given. It is sad to see that some people are still influenced by German nationalist propaganda from XIX century which tried to erase all mention of Polish achievements. In fact Kopernik is known worldwide as Polish astronomer and Misplaced Pages should reflect this. No besides well known views of Matthead and Sciurinæ who work with great effort to "remove Polish POV" every day, can we finally get some scholary source denying he was Polish ? --Molobo 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus, born in Thorn, historically known as Prussian Mathematician

Portraits of Copernicus with inscriptions Canon of Warmia, Prussian Mathematician, Thorn in Prussia etc

Thorn in Culmerland in Prussia, map from 16th century

Thorn/Thorun Nicolaus Copernicus' City of Birth:

Book on Nicolaus Copernicus with Bio

Salem Press, 2005

Editor Christina J. Moose

Great Lives from History The Renaissance & Early Modern Era

Nicolaus Copernicus Bio

by William Urban

Stanford University on Nicolaus Copernicus

• Online search 2006 Kopernikus deutscher Astronom und Mathematiker (German astronomer and mathematician)

• Hallmark International UK Famous Germans Nicolaus Copernicus

MG 3/22/2006

Neutrality and factual accuracy

May I ask, for what reason there are now these two templates in top of the article? I think we agree that the majority of the article is of high quality. We have dispute about the best version in the lead (concerning one ore two words) and perhaps there are some disagreements about the "nationality subsection". The factual accuracy was not really doubted for the most of the article - but this is the impression the templates evoke. I think their position is completely disproportionate. I would propose that the one who inserted it reverts it (wasn't that you Balcer?). And if it is considered necessary he shall shift the templates to the nationality section.--Dagox 11:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the leads of articles do have some importance. After all that is what the whole poll just conducted was about, and 23 people considered the issue important enough to cast their vote. Despite the fact that about 75% of those polled expressed preference for mentioning Copernicus' nationality in the lead in one form or another, it was removed by the efforts of a few persistent users. Actually, when I attached the tags, the lead then contained absolutely no information about Copernicus' origin, nationality, or even places where he lived and worked. In my opinion, if a small bunch of users push a version that is against the preference of three quarters of people interested in the article, that article cannot be considered neutral or factually accurate (if one omits vital information, one introduces inaccuracy).

Let the tags stay for a while, until the controversy cools off and some compromise can be worked out. Balcer 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on recent edits and whatnot

Some general comments:

• 1. Why are we citing sources in the opening paragraph?
• 2. Why are we citing encyclopedias as sources?

There's solid evidence that Copernicus was born in Toruń (Thorn), which was then part of Chełmno Land (Kulmerland)) and is now part of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship in northern Poland, so why don't we just say that?

Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) was an astronomer who is remembered for providing the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. He was born in Toruń (Thorn), which was then part of Chełmno Land (Kulmerland)) and is now part of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodship in northern Poland.

What's the point of bickering endlessly about whether we say he was Polish or German in the introduction when at that time the modern states of Poland and Germany did not exist? People interested in working out issues of nationality can read the section "Historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality" and then go to the source documents (note: not encyclopedias!) but this is not an instititute for primary research and we should not try to decide such issues, whether by voting or not. We should just say what can be said for a fact in the introduction and move on. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should Copernicus be singled out as a man of no nationality? Consider just two examples: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, both rough contemporaries of Copernicus, described in the leads as Danish and German astronomers respectively. Are you in favour of removing any mention of nationality from the lead of those articles as well?

Furthermore, why would you want to list obscure local jurisdictions in the lead? Surely most sources first state which country a given person was born in, not in which province of that country. Balcer 02:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for encyclopedia references, they were mostly added to counter the accusations that the "Polish astronomer" version is just "Polish nationalist POV pushing". Obviously Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia are not written by Polish nationalists. Balcer 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm asking that he be "singled out". It's simply that, owing to the circumstances of his birth, there is considerable debate about his nationality. I'm trying to focus on the job we have in this encyclopedia, and it seems to me that it isn't to assign nationality to each and every person we write about, but to report and summarise the facts by reference to primary and secondary sources. We have a lengthy section in the body of the article outlining the complexities of the question of Copernicus' nationality; we cannot magic away the complexities by artificially pronouncing an answer (whether by poll or by reference to other encyclopedias--themselves secondary or tertiary sources) in the introduction.

The encyclopedia references do not belong in the article. They cannot be used to establish facts. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point me to a specific Misplaced Pages guideline that would support this claim? After all, we have whole articles which are taken verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (the one that is in public domain). Surely you are not suggesting that only primary documents can be cited.

As for the controversy, somehow two major English language encyclopedias do not consider the issue controversial enough to avoid mentioning Copernicus' nationality in the leads of their articles. I wonder why you do. Balcer 02:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the controversy, just because two encyclopedias are ignorant of the controversy, it does not mean that they are decisive. Misplaced Pages is not about evaluating facts and draw a conclusion which the reader should take at face value. Your argument is a pure interpretation, or do you have a source that they do not consider the issue controversial enough? Sciurinæ 02:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If two major encyclopedias are ignorant of a controversy, maybe it is not such a big controversy as you would like to believe. Balcer 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh use of signed articles from major encyclopedias, that have references, is recommended by Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, but it goes on: "Be warned that most unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers with little expertise and must be used with caution."

Since there are expert sources we can direct readers to on this matter I don't know why we are citing encyclopedia articles at all.

By the way since there seemed to be an incipient edit war I thought I'd better protect the article for a few hours to let everybody cool off. I'll unprotect later today (or ask someone else to do it if you can't wait). --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the guideline. To quote it: When reporting facts, Misplaced Pages articles should cite sources. There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, .... So, it seems to me Misplaced Pages encourages the use of reputable encyclopedias as references. It follows that we can definitely cite them as sources. Of course, if better sources are found, they can also be added to the list of references. Balcer 13:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly deprecate the indiscriminate citation of entries in other encyclopedias, whether reputable or not. As the part of the guideline that you did not quote made clear, the encyclopedias are sometimes a source of signed entries by experts in the field. Only insofar as such a work is the work of that expert is it advisable to cite the encyclopedia entry at all. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not quote the other part of the guideline because you quoted it already, so I did not want to repeat the same text. I am well aware that not all encyclopedia entries are guaranteed to be accurate. Still, I think it is reasonable to assume that Encyclopedia Britannica probably got someone competent to write its entry on one of the most important scientists in human history. Unfortunately, I do not have a paper copy of EB within reach, so I cannot tell who was the author.

Again, other references are welcome. Unfortunately, in this whole revert war few people bothered to put in properly cited references so far (there are only 4, and all of these have been put in by me, if I recall correctly). Please feel free to add more! Balcer 04:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing the article, only seeking to find a way to reduce friction between the contributors. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources about the controversy

"However just as there was no German state prior to 1871, ideas about which area constituted Germany varied over the centuries, particularly as there were no natural geographical boundaries, especially in the east. Accordingly, it remains a matter of dispute to this day whether the astronomer Copernicus should be regarded as a German or a Pole. Given the geographical and ethnic uncertainties, it is small wonder that the greatest German poet, Goethe, spoke of his inability to 'find' the country Germany." -From Understanding Contemporary Germany by K Stuart Parkes comment by User:SK6

This is a book about the history of Germany, and it mentions Copernicus in passing, in one sentence of its introduction. Anyway, those who claim there is a dispute about Copernicus: any dispute has to have at least two sides. So, could you please cite modern, English language references that would argue the viewpoint that Copernicus was German? I have not come across any published recently. Balcer 13:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a book about the history of Germany and Copernicus is in the introduction. comment by User:SK6

It is a general book which mentions Copernicus in passing, in only one of its sentences. In provides no evidence or citations for its claim, and so in our context is almost useless. If we want to prominently claim that there is a dispute whether Copernicus was German or Polish, we should very simply quote a recent scholarly work which argues the case that he was a German. Balcer 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We have very good evidence concerning where Copernicus lived in various periods in his life, and in which countries these places were located, so there is no geographical uncertainty as far as Copernicus is concerned. Besides, it sounds like a weasel term and should be avoided. Balcer 13:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Balcer!

The whole discussion seems to be rewound. Arguments concerning the historical debate can be found in the archiv .

There was a debate, when nationalism arose in the 19th century untill at least 1945. The scientific achievements in the Copernicus research of this period are considerable and still appreciated although chauvinism was present and has to be taken into account when the respective publications are used. No historian will doubt that there was also a scientific debate concerning Copernicus' nationality.

After 1945 it has become more and more unpopular to insist in German national affairs - no surprise after the German war crimes and the Holocaust. However, in the scientific area (perhaps not all but) several very reputed historians solved the problem in a different way: They considered it as a mere anachronistic topic evoked by national vanity and felt it was of minor importance. So they avoided explicit attribuation of Copericus to a nationality and they just mention in their books the historical facts like his citizenship, the (indeed complex) relation of Warmia to the Polish king and Teutonic order, or what is known about his language skills etc. Some examples:

• Edward Rosen, major source of the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia .
• Owen Gingerich, Havard University, received Polish government's Order of Merit (1981),
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

You may not be convinced. However, you can't claim that there hasn't been a debate or that all reputed historians and books agree with your opinion. It is not even clear, why your POV should be considered superior to the Rosen's or Gingerichs's: it is neither more neutral nor scientifically more evident. I see apart from the two Encyclopediae no references to your position. In this respect the recent state of the lead is not in agreement with the wikipedia policy:

"Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus."

That's why I still object your position, like Tony Sidaway, Durova, FocalPoint and others. --Dagox 15:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dagox,

Thanks for a lengthy explanation. As I said, our article at this point lacks good references and citations addressing the nationality issue and how it is handled by modern historians. Feel free to add more, and incorporate the above discussion into the appropriate section. I reverted a few times today because the reference given to prove that a dispute about Copernicus and his nationality exists today was, quite simply, completely inadequate. It is just a random book spit out by Google Book Search, which is about the history of modern Germany, and mentions Copernicus only in one sentence of its introduction. Besides, as you just explained, the point is not that there is a dispute, but that some writers try to avoid the issue as much as possible.

Anyway, here is my take on all this. Of course I can very well understand the argument that in Copernicus' time nationality was something very different from what it is today, and I respect scholars who choose to avoid the dispute by simply sidelining it. However, this is Misplaced Pages, and the general standard seems to be that scientific figures from the period have their nationality prominently mentioned in the first sentence (see Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler). What started this revert war in the first place were attempts by some people to very systematically remove any mention of possible association of Copernicus with Poland. That obviously got me and some other editors steamed up. I believe that the version which won the most votes in the poll is actually the most neutral, as in the lead it follows the practice of major English language encyclopedias (hence hopefully avoiding charges of nationalist POV pushing) and then the space is left in the paragraph just below the lead to fully explain the issue. Can we at least agree on this basic framework? Balcer 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out, what I consider as the most neutral solution, and why I do. Copernicus is at least in one respect a different case, as his citizenship, ethnicity and other possible contributions to his wide-sense nationality don't coincide in such a clear way as for Brahe or Kepler - which essentially leads to disputes. Hence I think it is appropriate to leave the question completely in a subsection. That's my personal proposal, but as the article changes quite quickly at the moment, I will not edit the main page. I regret that there seems to be an ongoing edit-war.--Dagox 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/PTJ/b/b58_031-035.pdf

From BULLETIN DE LA SOCIÉTÉ POLONAISE DE LINGUISTIQUE, fasc. LVIII, 2002

Natomiast w XIX wieku Niemcy za-częli twierdzić, że Kopernik był Niemcem, i trwało to do roku 1945. Ale po II wojnie światowej zaszła pewna zmiana. W lectorium głównym Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej przejrzałem wszystkie encyklopedie i okazało się, że w niemal wszystkich encyklo-pediach, od Encyclopedia Americana i Encyclopaedia Britannica poczynając, a na encyklopediach włoskich skończywszy, jest napisane, że Kopernik był Polakiem. Pod tym względem wyjątek stanowią jedynie encyklopedie niemieckie (Der große Herderz r. 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon z r. 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez r. 1990), a mianowicie w nich narodowość Kopernika została przemilczana. Tak więc po II wojnie światowej Niemcy nie twierdzą już, że Kopernik był Niemcem, ale albo jego narodowość przemilczają, albo powiadają, że był Europejczykiem.

Translation: However in XIX century Germans started to claim Kopernik was a German, and took till 1945.After II WW a certain change happened. In the main reading room of Jagiellon University, I went through all encyclopedia's and it turned out that in almost all encyclopedia's, starting from Encyclopedia Americana and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and ending on Italian encyclopedia's is written that Kopernik was a Pole. The only exception's are German encyclopedias (Der große Herderz 1954, Meyers enzyklopädisches Lexikon 1975 oraz Brockhaus Enzyklopädiez 1990), and mainly in the fact that nationality of Kopernik was overlooked. So after WW2 Germans no longer try to claim Kopernik was a German, but avoid mentioning his nationality, or try to say that he was European. --Molobo 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Posted before. Its discussion can be found here and here. Sciurinæ 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nicolaus Copernicus was born in 1473 at Thorn in West Prussia, of a Polish father and a German mother." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SK6 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 March 2006 UTC (UTC)

Factual Nicolaus Copernicus Bio by William Urban

Urban states facts only.

To become a citizen of Thorn, a Hanse city, a person had to be 'of German tongue' meaning German language speaker. To hold office in Prussia, as Copernicus did, one had to be a Prussian.

True - but Prussian _did not mean German_. Germans from outside Prussia were treated as foreigners, while Poles born in Prussia were perfectly acceptable as Prussians. Szopen 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike William Urban, who stays with the facts, a large number of other people 'interpret' the facts from 500 years ago by adding their own POV of today and thus we get this current interpretation, that 'Copernicus was Polish', despite centuries of scientist identifying him correctly as Prussian Mathematician of German nation or Canon of Warmia etc.

Again, German natio in Bologna was nto declaration of nationality, but student corporation. All Polish students belonged to German nation at that time. Get over it. Szopen 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

MG 3/18/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.39.36 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Copernicus was from Thorn (now Tirun) in Polish Prussia. There has existed throughout modern times an unseemly and pointless squabble as to his nationality, even among historians who should know better. The notion of nationality was quite different in the Renaissance than it is today; Copernicus spoke German as his native language, but owned allegiance to the King of Poland. While Bruno here refers to Copernicus as a German, he participated in 1583 in a famous debate on the Copernican theory at Oxford." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SK6 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 March 2006 UTC (UTC)

Protected again

Oh the nationality thing has blown up again, so I've protected. Please be good chaps and sort it out amicably. --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

heretic question

Poland was moved westward by germany and russia foce over time. So there must be some polish celebraties which have been born in an area which is now belorus or ukraine, lets make them all russian nationality than, becaus the area is now no longer polish. Please this is a heretic question and nobody should do it for real. --Stone 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus wasn't born in the area which is NOW Poland, but in the area which was part of Polish kingdom at time of this birth, in the time where nationality meant something else than today. So what's your point? Because the situation would be somehow comparable if you would call Polish celebrities born during Poland's partition, about which we haev no clear info how did they considered themselves. Szopen 12:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As I red the discussion it was part of Prussia, but if it was a part of polish kingdom, than the polish scientist would be a atribute which would fit. The one german parent could be mentioned like that the are he was coming from had german language (than the question might be what was his language).--Stone 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Borders of states are not the solely decisive factor in whether something/somebody is German or Polish. The following paragraph is from Polonophobia (the paragraph wasn't written by Molobo)

After an April 30, 2004 CTV News news report referred to "the Polish camp in Treblinka", the Polish embassy lodged a complaint with CTV. Robert Hurst of CTV, however, contended that the expression, "Polish death camps," is common usage in news organizations, including those in the United States, and is not misleading, and declined to issue a correction. The Polish Ambassador to Ottawa then complained to the National Specialty Services Panel of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, which ruled against CTV. It did not accept Hurst's arguments, stating that "“Polish” - similarly to such adjectives as “English”, “French” and “German” – had connotations that clearly extended beyond geographic context. Its use with reference to Nazi extermination camps was misleading and improper". CTV broadcast the decision during prime time.

Sciurinæ 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If I hear such discussions, the only solution is: Go where he is buried, dig him out and ask him!--Stone 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that the subject of the dispute is too small a matter and criticise the polemic, but it's quite another thing to find an acceptable solution. How long has the article been subject to edit wars and discussion? Since 20 November 2001. Some weeks ago, the washington post wrote this article, and I fail to see the "fact" in it that the question of his nationality has been solved. Sciurinæ 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is so important than make him an marsian, I think he looks much like one.

Sometimes haveing fun is more impotant, because if you always fight you get old, weary, angry, sarcastic and you miss your life! Polish kingdom makes him polish for me.--Stone 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're free to draw your own conclusions, state your conclusions as your conclusions, free even to (over)simplify matters.

It is impossible to suggest a "Let's agree to differ" with everyone proclaiming the question of his nationality is senseless but solved in favour of their view in the end. I'm only impressed at how many actually read through the policy NPOV. On its page you can find the answer as to why it hasn't been solved. Avoiding constant disputes: "The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Misplaced Pages so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." Sciurinæ 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sciurinae, it has been suggested to call him Polish-German astronom, Polish astronom of German ethnicity etc. No solution lasted for longer than few hours. Szopen 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I realize that maybe no solution will ever be possible, given the basic limitations of Misplaced Pages. Even if we were to reach an agreement, a few weeks from now a new user would roll in and insert his own POV, starting the cycle all over again.

Maybe the best solution is just to have NPOV:nationality tag permanently attached.

Still, could we at least agree that Copernicus' nationality should be mentioned briefly in the lead, one way or another? Then we could discuss a compromise on how that should be formulated. Obviously, those who insist on removing all mention of nationality from the lead are not working towards any compromise (they insist their viewpoint be adopted 100%). About 75% of participants in the poll were in favour of mentioning the nationality issue one way or another. Balcer 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree because for you his nationality obviously means to say he's a Polish astronomer. That's not a fact and that's what the controversy is all about and that's what causes the disagreement. You call those who don't want to mention one nationality "are not working towards any compromise" and "insist their viewpoint be adopted 100%". For me it's just the other way round. Not mentioning the nationality is not only working towards compromise, it's the option if we don't want to compromise the NPOV. And those who want to exclusively assert a nationality are those who want to have "their viewpoint be adopted 100%". But it's a good stratgey to say that the other's side compromise is their 100% viewpoint -- that would make a new compromise a compromise between your view and the others' compromise: it shifts the POV to you, doesn't it? In other words, you abuse the others' willingness to compromise and accuse them they're unwilling to compromise. Sciurinæ 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No nationality is not no solution

I've briefly checked the version history and noticed that any attribution of nationality results in revert wars, from 2001 on, but also a lack of attribution. Still it's not the same thing. The German-language Misplaced Pages finished the dispute about his nationality by just leaving the attribution out. Now, you will probably think that it's logical because the number of Germans certainly outweigh that of Poles in it. Tirid Tirid posted a link to Ludwig van Beethoven, apparently as argument for his view. No matter whether you see similiarities in the question of nationality, both Austrians and Germans speak German and one could wonder how they solved the dispute in the German-language wiki. In the article there is no attribution of nationality. I mean, why not? Francis of Assisi isn't attributed, either. Einstein's article in the German wiki is featured and solved it the same way. Both the Guardian's and the Washington Post's article simply left Copernicus's nationality out, too, and fairly characterised the dispute. So did the website of Das Erste, http://www.deutsche-und-polen.de a source so little pro-German that even Molobo based his "article" Selbstschutz on it. As for Britannica, I'm not sure whether they're really aware of a dispute. The 120,000 articles they've written were surely not written by a team of 1,000,000 historians reading 10,000,000 books all in all. With their factual accuracy being little more accurate than Misplaced Pages it doesn't seem to me to be infallible, and not even a former editor-in-chief of Britannica believes in Misplaced Pages's reliability. ;-) And just because the Duden is *only* a major scholary source in the German-language sphere, while we allegedly needed an English source for the English wikipedia, doesn't mean that Copernicus is Polish when one travels to the USA and suddenly German in German-speaking countries. It is patently obvious that his nationality is not uncontroversial. And that's where the policy NPOV is decisive - not another weapon in an edit war but the lady justice, so to speak, the policy which - according to Misplaced Pages's founder - "is absolute and non-negotiable". The problem of the proper adjective in the lead is the same as a proper category, because just like we cannot write essays in the Category space, we cannot do that in the lead section, either. Are you beginning to understand why the guideline Misplaced Pages:Categorization reads "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." ? As for a solution, Misplaced Pages:POV pushing is probably right: "A major failing of Misplaced Pages all along has been the haphazard or lackadaisical enforcement of the neutrality policy. The result is that a climate exists where it is easier for POV pushers to win, than for the rest of the community to stop them. No solution to this problem is known at this time." But giving in to fatalism certainly is the worst. Sciurinæ 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC) http://www.deutsche-und-polen.de a source so little pro-German that even Molobo based his "article" Don't lie. Added a link from it as proof for a statement. It is patently obvious that his nationality is not uncontroversial Please present a source that claim it is controversal for modern scholars. --Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really important whether you based the entire article or only parts of the article on that source? It remains a fact that you relied on this source and that this source is modern and claims this issue controversial. Sciurinæ 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Passing comment on nationality dispute

I don't expect this comment to survive in the article itself, so I'm putting it here as well. I'm sure it is not new, but my comment on this nationality dispute (even though the current section on it is interesting and well-written) is that it distracts from the main point of the article - ie. what Copernicus is famous for. He is not famous for having his nationality disputed several centuries later by people who really should know better. I've summed this up with the following: "Placing a historical figure in a modern context is not always helpful. It is more important to place Copernicus in his historical and scientific context." - the nationality "conflict" should be a footnote at most, with links to pages on Polish and German nationalism, if those exist. Carcharoth 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead paragraph

As someone passing by, I do not want to get involved in a long Polish-German dispute. I know what that can be like from reading some of the Gdansk/Danzig disputes. But two things caught my eye, and I hope those more involved with this will step back and consider these points in the hope that they can go some way to resolving this dispute (and indeed how to resolve similar disputes):

(1) The template warning about the dispute is very offputting. When I saw another dispute template further down the page, I thought the first one was redundant. An edit summary reverting my removal of the main template said that the problem is actually with the lead paragraph. So I had a look at that. Big problems, because essential biographical information is missing.

(2) The main problem with the lead paragraph at the moment is that is misses one of the key things you need to answer when writing the lead paragraph for a biography of someone. It doesn't say where he was born and lived and died. It gives his name (who), his birth and death dates (when), what he did and is famous for (what), why he is famous (why). Of the standard who/what/where/when/why/how questions, it does not answer "how", which is not that important in this context, but is is absolutely unforgivable that it doesn't answer the "where" question. Where was he born, where did he live, and where did he die? Some styles of biographical articles put birth and death places in the birth/death brackets, so that would help. but this style doesn't seem to have been adopted by Misplaced Pages. I would suggest adding sentences to the lead paragraphs stating clearly and succintly the towns in which Copernicus was born, lived and died, and the nations in which those towns were located. Let people follow the links or read the rest of the article to find out the flux in the populations/boundaries/allegiances in that era at that time.

Based on the above, I suggest changing the lead paragraph to read as follows:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, part of the Hanseatic League and the Prussian Confederation, in Royal Prussia, then an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

Copernicus was one of the great polymaths of his age. He was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist, physician, classical scholar, governor, administrator, diplomat, economist and soldier. Amid his extensive responsibilities, he treated astronomy as an avocation. However, his formulation of how the sun rather than the earth is at the center of the universe is considered one of the most important scientific hypotheses in history. It came to mark the starting point of modern astronomy and, in turn, of modern science, encouraging young astronomers, scientists and scholars to take a more skeptical attitude toward established dogma."

Does this seem acceptable? Carcharoth 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start, and might lead to a workable compromise. One problem here might be that Royal Prussia is mentioned a bit too prominently. After all, it was just one of the provinces of the Kingdom of Poland, joined to it by a union. It was not an independent entity. To illustrate the point with an example, consider that we do not stress that Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen spent most of his working life in Bavaria, but just say that he lived in Germany, even though Bavaria was a highly autonomous province of Germany, which even had its own formally separate army. Furthermore, Prussian Confederation need not be mentioned at all, since that entity was no longer relevant at the time of Copernicus' birth as it was just an association formed during the Thirteen Years War. Similarly, Hanseatic League is also irrelevant here as it was just an economic association, already declining in importance at the time. Here is my proposal for the first paragraph of the lead:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Poland, where he died in 1543. Balcer 23:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit seems to be very neutral Balcer, the only problem people might find with it is the Frombork, Poland part. Since it has already been established earlier in the paragraph that Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland here is my suggestion (just a tiny change at the bottom):

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń, in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork, Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543. Philip Gronowski 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live with this version, if it will finally end the revert wars. It does pass over the question of his nationality in silence, but hopefully the readers will see the relevant section if they are interested in the issue. Balcer 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose and can live with the following addition according to the well beloved Talk:Gdansk/Vote: in the lead the name 'Thorn' should be mentioned and 'Frauenburg' (which was the name of the city until 1945). So my suggestion is:

"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric (sun-centered) theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frauenburg (Frombork), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543. Sciurinæ 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can accept including the German names also as needed. But why do you want to add "East Prussia" and "West Prussia" to the place descriptions? These geographical concepts appeared much later. Royal Prussia is just fine. Furthermore, the fact that you removed just about all mention of Poland in your lead version seems to indicate that you are in no mood for any compromise at all. I can't say I am much surprised. Balcer 02:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Royal Prussia or East Prussia, I don't care. I was relying on your sources (Britannica and Bartleby) that wrote Frauenburg was part of East Prussia. I guess I shouldn't have trusted them. BTW, it's not true that I removed all mention of Poland. Sciurinæ 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There was almost no mention of Poland in the version of your comment to which I was replying. In that version, Poland was only mentioned alongside Italy as the place where Copernicus was educated. Afterwards, after reading my comment, you made some modifications, in this diff, which made the lead more reasonable. Note that what you are doing here is confusing the readers. If you write a comment, and then someone posts a reply to it, you should not go back changing your original comment and making the reply seem out of place. Your statement BTW, it's not true that I removed all mention of Poland is misleading. Balcer 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While Sciurinæ's editing of his comment has made the discussion a bit harder to follow (and he should have added an "edited my proposal" after your comment to make this clearer), he actually moved towards compromise. His and your version are now very close, and if one of them (or their arithmetic mean :-)) could be accepted by the community, a great step forward would be made. Could we please concentrate on the text to be put into the article instead of editor's behavior? Kusma (討論) 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can almost accept this, but would still prefer to see some rewording. The expression Frauenburg (Frombork) should be changed to Frombork (Frauenburg). Double linking is not necessary and the modern name ought to come first (plus the material under Frauenburg link is totally irrelevant to Copernicus article). The specification that the province was "autonomous" is not necessary, as that was definitely not an official expression of the time, and readers interested in Royal Prussia and its status within the Kingdom of Poland can consult relevant articles. Balcer 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So you could accept this here?

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, a province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork (Frauenburg), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

Whether it is Frauenburg (Frombork) or Frombork (Frauenburg) is a Gdansk/Danzig type question. Using the proposed Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), it is Frombork (Frauenburg) by default unless Frauenburg is a widely accepted historical English name for the city. But this would have to be discussed at Talk:Frombork and is a small matter compared to the question of using "an astronomer" instead of "a Polish astronomer". Kusma (討論) 22:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Frombork was also not the "official expression of the time" so why should it replace Frauenburg? Britannica and Bartleby also use 'Frauenburg' instead of 'Frombork'. The city's name is also relevant to the astronomer because, according to the Frombork article, Copernicus "is said to have jokingly called Frauenburg also "Weiberstadt" (wives town) or "Ginnepolis" (Ginne meaning woman in Old Prussian)". I also believe that "autonomous" is relevant for the context because in Copernicus's lifetime, Royal Prussia was an atonomous province and only in 1569 it became a common province losing its privileges. I would agree with using Torun (Thorn) and Frauenburg (Frombork) throughout the article as a balance. Sciurinæ 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Using Torun (Thorn) and Frauenburg (Frombork) just creates confusion for Misplaced Pages readers. If they know that Torun is the modern name, will they then infer that Frauenburg is also (the order is the same after all)? We should adopt the same convention in the same paragraph. As for the autonomous province, fine, I can live with that too. For me it is not a relevant piece of information, but if someone considers it vitally important, let it be included. Finally, since User:Sciurinæ has rejected Encyclopedia Britannica as a valid source, seeing him turn around and try to use it to justify his claims is somewhat amusing. Say, why don't we just follow Encyclopedia Britannica, use the form "Polish Astronomer" in the first sentence, and be done with it. Anyway, the precise order of names in given languages is something set by Misplaced Pages guidelines, so we are not bound to copy what Britannica uses. On the other hand, the fact that Britannica prominently calls Copernicus a Polish astronomer in its first sentence does give us some idea of what mainstream sources say about the issue. Balcer 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please distinguish between fact- and name-finding. I was of course using Britannica because you have referred to it for uncountable times which does not allow you to object it, so it's not amusing at all that I was citing it. I believe that Toruń and Frauenburg are the predominating names and they form some kind of balance. I don't think that would lead to confusion. Sciurinæ 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just go with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), as suggested by Kusma. This is the best way to achieve neutrality. Frombork/Frauenburg is a small town with about 2000 inhabitants, and it has never been much bigger than that, so I don't believe there is a widely accepted English name for it. Hence Frombork (Frauenburg) is the form consistent with Misplaced Pages standards. Balcer 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if we apply that rule, Frauenburg (Frombork) would follow. According to the definition for the historical name, the name is used in Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta. However, google scholar fails, yet Frauenburg still has the majority but not the 2/3 majority. But we needn't apply that rule, because the Gdansk/Vote already determines that Frauenburg (Frombork) should be used. I would compromise that we use Frauenburg (Frombork) and Torun (Thorn). Sciurinæ 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How does Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply here? It sets some very specific rules for Gdansk, but those do not apply to Frombork. It has some rules for biographies of clearly Polish and clearly German persons, but those cannot apply here, obviously. It enforces double naming, but it says nothing about the order in which names should be given. It just says both names should be there, which in our proposals they will be. In short, Talk:Gdansk/Vote is of little relevance to our problem. Let's use the modern name first, as that way we will have a consistent standard and avoid confusion. It is totally unfair to readers to mix conventions, as most of them are presumably unfamiliar with Polish-German disputes and will just assume that the first name is the modern, most commonly used name, and thus be misled. Balcer 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, these arguements won't take us nowhere. I'd agree with "mix conventions" and I believe that it is also fair to readers because these are the predominating names in the historical context. Sciurinæ 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Why don't we let Kusma decide this point? Hopefully he can make a neutral, objective determination here. I am willing to accept this decision. Balcer 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the fact that he was Polish. So far no serious scholary source has been presented arguing that he is German rather then (as accepted by overwhelming majority of scientific world) Polish. --Molobo 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Copernicus was German. In fact, in my opinion the whole point of the new proposal is to find a formulation that makes it clear that he was born and worked in Poland (which seems to be an accepted fact) but stops short of using "Polish astronomer" (which is disputed because it has slightly different implications, e.g. the question of his ethnicity). The following proposal makes no mention of Germany at all:

Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer who provided the first modern formulation of a heliocentric theory of the solar system in his epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Copernicus was born in 1473 in the city of Toruń (Thorn), in Royal Prussia, an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Poland. He was educated in Poland and Italy, and spent most of his working life in Frombork (Frauenburg), Royal Prussia, where he died in 1543.

As Balcer has accepted this and Sciurinæ's version is different only by the ordering of two names (which is a different question from the question of a compromise on "Polish" and would be rather WP:LAME to edit war about), I think this is a reasonable proposal, especially since it moves the nationality dispute out of the opening paragraph. Kusma (討論) 01:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Balcer 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't mention that one of the brightest minds of our civilisation was Polish astronomer. Certainly irritation of few Wikiusers because of their personal views can't be taken as guidance. Please provide scholary sources claiming he isn't Polish astronomer as Brittanica states it. --Molobo 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a suggestion how the perpetual edit warring on this page should be stopped, so that one of the brightest minds of our civilisation can have a stable article not made ugly by {{NPOV}} tags and page protection. Tons of sources (also supporting a different point of view) have been provided, which did not help. Kusma (討論) 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would prefer to have the formulation "Polish astronomer" in the article lead as well. Still, the current proposal clearly indicates that Copernicus spent practically his entire life in Poland, which I think is adequate to stress his Polish connection. I have frequently stated that the ethnicity of Copernicus is really an open question (and to me rather irrelevant). Still, if some people believe that calling Copernicus Polish implies certainty that he was 100% ethnically Polish (do such people even exist?) and hence might not be entirely correct, I can at least understand their point of view. BTW, as someone who had such a close connection to Poland, he can definitely be included in the Category:Polish astronomers etc., as that category is broader then just people who are 100%, undisputably Polish in all respects. This compromise does not preclude that since, quite clearly, it is solely about the lead of the Copernicus article, and not anything else.

This compromise is not perfect, but I prefer it to endless revert wars. If in the future stronger consensus develops for calling Copernicus Polish, the article will change naturally as appropriate. Balcer 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would prefer to have the formulation "Polish astronomer" in the article lead as well. What stops us from naming him so ? Personal views of few users with no sources ?

This compromise is not perfect, but I prefer it to endless revert war The solution is simple. The article should be written based on current respected knowledge and then protected from vandals for a period of some time. Unless somebody gives evidence he is German or of German ethnic background I see no reason to deny he was Polish just because a couple of users(including ones frequently deleting info on Nazi atrocities) are bothered that Wiki doesn't reckognise German nationalistic ideology from XIX century as guidance. --Molobo 02:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As you are probably well aware, there is ample evidence that his mother was ethnic German and hardly any evidence that his father was an ethnic Pole. The proposal above is similar to replacing "Polish" (an ambiguous term, meaning "from Poland" or "of Polish ethnicity") by "from Poland", to avoid claiming an ethnicity. Kusma (討論) 03:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry can you present evidence that his mother was ethnic German ? Anyway remembering Forster(the scientists who believed Poles are animals), he was purely Scotish but I don't remember that you tried to erase the claim that he is German. Why is Kopernik different ?

--Molobo 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I believe your statement is based on German perception of nationality based on flawed concept of blood rather then earth. That means that nationality is determined by flawed perception of attributing ethnic background to flawed perceptions of birth, geneology rather then by cultural sphere of the person.

--Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, your solution is not simple at all! How would you propose to do this? This is just not how Misplaced Pages operates. Misplaced Pages is created by users, not by administrators who lock articles to impose the "correct" version. If you don't accept this basic principle of Misplaced Pages, you should seriously reconsider your participation in the project. Please propose another solution, as your current proposal is simly not practical. The continuation of this revert war is just a waste of everyone's time, and it discourages people from improving the article. It must stop.Balcer 03:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Balcer but it would be similar action if somebody would come with belief Earth is flat and tried to erase information that Earth is round(well geoid but you know what I mean) from every article mentioning Earth's shape. Such a person couldn't expect that his wishes will be heard seriously. Why should people listening to high tales of German nationalism from XIX century be heard ? Should we next add information that Poles are of lower culture then Germans ? Or that Poznań is eternal German city ? Once we take the first step towards accepting simple bullying like happened here by two or three determined POV pushers(and pushers against accepted definitions in scholary world) we shall make a dangerous precedense. The fact that somebody vandalises the page on regular basis shouldn't make us accept vandalism. I of course have nothing against mentioning that Germans tried to portay Kopernik as German in XIX century as a result of Pan-Germanism ideology and German conflict with Poles. This is an acceptable information in line with historical accuracy. --Molobo 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So your solution is the continuation of the revert war. That's too bad. I see that I am not going to convince you. Anyway, to ensure that this long discussion was not a complete waste of everyone's time, I have inserted the compromise sentence about places connected with Copernicus into the article. I hope no one has any objection to that. Balcer 13:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So your solution is the continuation of the revert war. No, my proposition is to guard against vandalism. I assure you Balcer that I am patient and vigiliant enough to protect the article. Molobo 07:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even you cannot be online 24 hours a day, and you are limited by the 3RR rule anyway. It's better to have a less-than-perfect version which is stable, than endless revert war which makes the article comletely useless to anybody. Balcer 13:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I can be vigiliant.

--Molobo 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please understand that mediating persons don't like being asked to take sides. I'm sick of discussing compromises if the instant that a new agreement is reached, the former is shaken. I thought I had made it clear that NPOV demands conflicting and significant viewpoints to be characterised or left out, not asserted. Now you're insisting on calling him Polish again. The dispute is in its fifth year and more and more people call for a binding solution. I increasingly think it is serious enough to have it referred to ArbCom. Sciurinæ 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to make this compromise more acceptable to Molobo, I simply said that this discussion is only about the lead of this particular article, and does not concern the issue of which Misplaced Pages categories Copernicus should be placed in etc. Categories are quite broad. Please check just how many categories Albert Einstein is in, for example.

I am also beginning to think that some external intervention by ArbCom might be necessary, as the issue is becoming serious. Copernicus is one of the greatest scientists in history, and the fact that Misplaced Pages cannot produce a stable article about him is really an indictment of the whole Misplaced Pages modus operandi, as it currently exists. I can easily imagine the press jumping on this article as another proof that Misplaced Pages is unreliable as a reference (continuing the tradition of John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy etc). To avoid this problem, we might even need some kind of a "Gdansk-vote" solution, where the exact formulation for Copernicus' nationality is decided and then ruthlessly enforced throughout Misplaced Pages. Balcer 13:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We might. However, it is rather unusual to have such rulings for a single issue, and the ArbCom does not usually take sides in content disputes. I would like to see a situation where an accepted compromise is protected in a way that Polish editors revert changes that make Copernicus more Polish and German editors revert changes that make Copernicus more German, which would show a lot more good will. I'm probably dreaming, though. Still, it would be nice if you could remove the extra "Polish" in the lead yourself to show that you intend to follow up your acceptance of the solution proposed here with actions. Kusma (討論) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Polish editors revert changes that make Copernicus more Polish Excuse me but what are you talking about ? Should soon Polish editors be asked to spread ideas of Hitler why attacked Poland in September 1939 article. This is an bizarre and strange idea. Copernicus is listed as Polish by every major encyclopedia respected in scholary word including Britannica and I see no scholary work of modern age, and of scholary value claiming he is German. Please stop this, it absurd that a couple of vandals filled with ideas from XIX century German nationalist propaganda are destroying this article. Molobo 07:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, the current compromise version of the lead does not say Copernicus was German, it simply does not include an explicit mention that he was Polish. Note the subtle difference. Balcer 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's done. Let's see whether this compromise can hold up, even for a few hours. Balcer 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it only lasted 5 hours and 57 minutes. I reverted it back to the original version and can only hope that lasts longer... Philip Gronowski 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, why can't you simply call him Prussian? or state that he was born in contemporary Poland, but that his nationality is disputed?

Nicolaus Copernicus Place of Birth, Work, Death

Once again I am reminding readers of the historical classifications of Nicolaus Copernicus' place of birth, Thorn (Torun) where he worked and where he died Frauenburg (Frombork) Thorn in Prussia Frauenburg in Prussia, that is what the country was called at his time as a number of maps of that time state. A portrait with Thorn, Royal Prussia (as can be seen on this list) made by a French person in 1720 shows the distinction of Royal and Ducal Prussia made be the 1700's. This distinction seems to have started under Kurfürst August II, the Strong of Saxony, also king of Poland and the Kurfürst of Brandenburg-Prussia, both Prince-Electors of German Reich (Holy Roman Empire. All maps before that time simply show Prussia for all parts involved. Never does it show during his time or centuries after that Copernicus was born in Poland or that he worked and died in Poland. He did attend Krakow, which was 'Polish', but at his time was also a Hanseatic city and had a large number if not majority German people, also Italians, building up the city, establishing businesses etc.

Copernicus did live and work in Frauenburg, Ermland/Warmia. This was an exempt Prince-Bishopric. That is why Copernicus on portraits is classified as Canon of Warmia in Prussia. He was not classified as Canon of Poland.

If for centuries Copernicus or any other person for that matter, was known as and classified as and he himself called his homeland Prussia, then neither Misplaced Pages nore Enc. Britannica nore anyone else has the right to 'declassify' him, change his identity to something else. MG 3/26/2006

It was suggested above to make it explicit in the lead paragraph that he was from Royal Prussia. (The word "Prussia" is too ambiguous to be used here). Do you have a problem with this? Kusma (討論) 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The country was called Royal Prussia, and it was a part of Poland. Why can't you accept that? Let me illustrate the issue with a quick example. Arnold Schwarzenegger is primarily known in the world as the governor of California and as an actor who achieved celebrity in Hollywood, California. Does this mean that in his bio we should only mention California as the place he lived and worked, and not mention that he is an American as well, and lives in the United States of America? Still, imagine some future Wikipedian posting a collection of Scharzenegger portraits describing him as "Governor of California" and using that to prove that "he was never considered an American"! That hypothetical Wikipedian could also take all state maps of California which do not mention United States prominently and thus "prove" that California was not a part of the US. That would be similar to what MG appears to be doing now.

Copernicus lived in Royal Prussia, so we mention it. Royal Prussia was a province in union in Poland, so we mention that also. Where is the difficulty? Why the insistence that the higher level political unit to which Royal Prussia belonged must be passed over in silence? Balcer 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing Äpfel and Orange County. Was Schwarzenegger born in the USA or in California? Does California have e.g. its own currency, which is different from the US-Dollar, and has Schwarzenegger written a report on this separate currency system? No? - These attempts at making Copernicus a Pole are boring. Is Poland so desperately short of scientists that even dead ones need to be imported? --Matthead 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Royal Prussia part of Polish kingdom or not? If not, then why? Use XV century standards when replying, not XX. By XX century standards half of Poland was "independent". Szopen 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Currency issue is irrelevant, many cities had their own currency while at present some currencies are used by multiple countries. It does not make Prussia not a part of Poland. And please note that the current introduction is not saying that Copernicus was a Pole. Just calm down a bit. I haven't followed the whole controversy, but I am finding it very hard to believe that an introduction that is so neutral has to carry an NPOV tag. Piet 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, as the compromise seems to be sticking. Balcer 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be too much to hope for the other non-NPOV tag to go? The one in the section that describes the debate and the history and reasons for it. I would say that that section comes over as well-balanced, but lacking in some points of English grammar and style. So a clean-up tag there would be more appropriate than a NPOV tag. Carcharoth 12:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Poland so desperately short of scientists that even dead ones need to be imported? Not really, but it seems Germany was when it tried to portay Kopernik as a German in XIX century. --Molobo 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This polish jealousy of german scientists really is ridiculous. It is only due to german politness and diplomacy such talk can go on.

Probably. After all, "German" is a symbol for politeness and diplomacy. Space Cadet 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

- As far as I have understood, he probably spoke German in school, and had German as his mother thounge language (as his mother was German). I would call him German or Prussian, born in contemporary Poland. People should accept contemporary people in the area he was born in as Polish, and the area as Polish, but that doesn't imply that one should change history, and say that it always has been that way.

Warning note for editors added to top of page

I've added a warning note to the top of the page for any editors that wander past and think about changing the two introductory paragraphs. This warning is only visible to editors, and is intended to prevent a well-intentioned edit starting a new edit war. I think that something should also be placed at the top of this talk page for editors to see (the warning note directs them to the talk page). The note at the top of the talk page should summarise this compromise, if it holds up. Carcharoth 12:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Long URLs disrupt reading of comparisons in edit history

This is certainly not the proper place to discuss formatting issues, but I encounter the problem mainly here. The extremely looooong URLs to Google books cause very wide screens when comparing two versions of the edit history, making this feature very hard to use. I consider this annoying and could not find a remedy with browser settings or Wiki preferences. Using tinyURL would be helpful, but this site is spam-blocked. Could this be solved somehow within Misplaced Pages by people who know how? --Matthead 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You should ask at WP:VPT, where some people who actually know what they're talking about can answer this question. TinyURL obviously has to be blocked if there is a spamlist. I agree that it would be nice to have a way to linebreak long URLs. Google Books URLs should also be replaced or at least accompanied by a proper citation of author and title including the ISBN etc. Kusma (討論) 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed history of science articles
• Unknown-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles