Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 2

message: To the fact, that Copernicus went to Krakow school, you apparently did not check the situation in Krakow at that time either, so here I am posting it again:
The Krakow relative lived in Krakow, when it was a Hanse city. Hanse seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia's article [  but you can still find a number of people working there, Conrad Celtes, Veit Stoss, Haller printers, Hans Duerer (brother of Albrecht), Hans von Kulmbach and many more, none of them Polish. The reference to Balthasar Behem Kodex  seems to also have disappeared. This Kodex recorded the city guilds of Krakow at that time c 1500- a municipal document- look closely and you will find it is written in German. Queen of Poland Elisabeth of Habsburg), daughter of a Holy Roman Empire emperor, was married to Casimir IV, thus the grandson of the emperor Albrecht, great-grandson of emperor Sigismund was Sigismund I. Sigismund and the other Jagiellonians where Lithuanians, who happened to be kings of Poland as well. 
Had you read this earlier entry and looked up the medieval history of Krakow, you would have known, that he did not need Polish language at all to have studied there. And the teacher Albert Blar most likely taught in Latin, did not teach Copernicus astronomy, but may have discussed it with him. And the teachers had recently come from Imperial Prague university, precisely because they spoke German (and that means they were German) and the Czech faction was making problems. You may also look into the Krakow history, because it was (at least in the 16/17th century) ruled by George Radziwill, aPrince-Bishop, just like Salzburg or many other territories in Europe, who were ruled by an archbishop, who was a prince of the empire.
MG 2/8/2006
:I fully agree that German was in common use in Krakow, while the primary language of instruction at the university was Latin.  My whole argument was that Copernicus must have encountered plenty of Polish students at Jagiellonian University and it is quite likely that he picked up at least some knowledge of the Polish language there, assuming he did not know any before.  This is simply common sense.  If you put an intelligent person in close contact with people speaking another language, there is a good chance that he or she will learn at least some of it.  Do you deny that there were many Polish speaking students at Jagiellonian University? Balcer 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, There were also a lot of Polish teachers at UJ, and Kopernik ha dmany Polish friends (e.g. B. Wapowski).Szopen 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Copernicus could have survived in Krakow without speaking Polish, but what is the evidence which makes it clear he did not speak Polish at all? Jagiellonian Uniwersity certainly enrolled many Polish students, which Copernicus must have met, and in all likelihood learned some Polish from (if he really did not know any before), given that he was a man of great intelligence who learned such difficult languages as ancient Greek. In short, as I said earlier, the idea that Copernicus did not know any Polish at all seems very unlikely to me.  Certainly I have never seen solid evidence to that effect. Balcer 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City and University of Krakow at time of Nicolaus Copernicus 

message: Speaking of Police: I just want to remind people about Wikipedia:Verifiability (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, too, but seems hopeless here). I don't claim Copernicus as 100% German, and I don't think anybody else here does. Some claim him 100% Polish though, and I (and Wikipedia) would like to see evidence for that (apart from repeating "Prussia was Polish province" all over again). --Matthead 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read more carefully.  Anon user from IP 24.23.39.36 claims that there was nothing Polish about Copernicus.  Now he is fighting a revert war trying to prove that Torun was an independent state which had nothing to do with Poland. Balcer 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: Thorn, Thorunensis, birthplace of Nicolaus Copernicus was an independent city state, state republic Referces: Stadtstaat or Stadt Republik  MG 2/6/2006
Thorn Legal Documents- Kirchenbuecher- Taufen Heiraten Tote-Church Records of inhabitants Baptism, Marriage, Deaths since c 1600   MG 2/6/2006
Nothing about it on the city homepage.Which I trust more then some West Prussian nostalgic amatour homepage/correction-this is the page of the German nationalist organisation BdV if I am looking right ?/
--Molobo 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One page is by Landsmannschaft Westpreußen, part of Federation of Expellees. Somehow I do not think this is a neutral sorce of information in this case.  I would prefer to use more impartial sources, like books by reputable academic historians, ideally written in English. Balcer 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadtrepublik  or Stadtstaat Thorn 

message: I see only two disputes here: the subject's nationality and the spelling of his name. The good news is that there doesn't seem to be much dispute over the other 99.99% of the article. Though I understand that it is an important matter, let's not overlook that this is an excellent biography. You've all done a fine job. Another good thing is the civil tone that editors have maintained even while disputing matters, which helps keep the atmosphere collegial. If editors are willing to compromise and work towards an NPOV solution that is at least barely acceptable to everybody, then we might find that resolution. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

message: I have locked this page because there seems to be an edit war going on. Please find a consensus using the talk page. -Will Beback 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic! Hic! Hic! -Will Beback 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 'Finally, some notes regarding the frequently discussed question of Nicolaus Copernicus's nationality.
W. Shea dealt with this question in his biography on him in 2003. He writes that this long and bold argument between Poles and German is nonsense and in fact has to remain inconclusive. Today's common term of the nationality hasn't been known yet in the lifetime of Nicolaus Copernicus. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as well as the Polish-Lithuanian Union were no states in today's sense,
but constructs whose population was mixed out of many linguistical and ethnical groups. The term 'native country', according to Shea, did not transcend regional dimensions in ancient times because most states were very scattered. So Nicolaus Copernicus owed allegiance to the King of Poland, yet considered the small German-speaking community of Ermland as his fatherland. Both Poles and Germans should be equally proud of their Copernicus. They have every reason for it.' Translated parts from  --Sciurinæ 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are presenting a straw man argument because no one here is claiming that Copernicus was Polish in today's sense, obviously. Equally, none of the states in Europe in the 15th century were states in today's sense, yet there are hundreds of Wikipedia biography articles about people living in Europe at that time which prominently feature the nationality in the article lead. Are you in favor of eliminating all mention of nationality in articles about Europeans living before 1550, or is Copernicus a special case? Balcer 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Holy Roman Empire wasn't a state obviously, but Commowealth was. --Molobo 09:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite obviously. Everybody knows that. ;) --Thorsten1 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Anne Frank was born in one legal land boundary, with a different "national" and ethnic, orientation, was then stripped of citizenship from that land boundary, moved to another land boundary, changed her languages, etcetc... Can we say *where* Copernicus was born boundary-wise, what that boundary was back then, where it is now, and also identify land boundaries and nationalities and cultures and ethnicities he was identified with over his life, rather than having a false dilemma about him being any one thing? Ronabop 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Frank compromise 

message: Befor the article starts, let's put there the following note:
This should stop any future vandalism.
-- De Bart 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Note 

message: Do you think we should add his 'reconstructed' image? I am pretty sure it would qualify as a fair use.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we really need it? The scientists who ordered the portrait did not have the jaw and still aren't sure whether it was him. And, last but not least, there were no tests so far to confirm that the skull was indeed Copernicus'. Halibutt 04:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an image?

message: Have the editors reached any consensus? Would it be a good time to remove the protection from the article, or do editors feel they need more time focused on discussion rather than editing? -Will Beback 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure, what is required to call it a consensus. We have a (inofficial) vote result, which favors no nationality in the lead. It can be hardly achieved that everybody agrees in this matter. The idea to add then a "controversial-sign" in top of the nationality section would fit well.--Dagox 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: Looking at the above debate, I see no reason for continuing the already very long period of protection from editing.  It should be perfectly easy to produce documentation that he was born in Cracow and there is a dispute about his origins.  This can be put into the article in a neutral way that satisfies all as to due prominence, by a process of editing.  I will be watching and expect to see cooperative editing. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: It appears that when I was posting my vote Thorsten's edit was deleted, and Matcreg's changed . I have no idea how it happened, though I know that it does happen on Wiki sometimes. I see that Matcreg's edit is changed back, and I added the Thorsten's one that was deleted. I am very sorry it happened, and I thank Thorsten for spotting it.--SylwiaS | talk 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies