Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Archive 4

message: As it was propsoed for quite same time, I've separated Copernican heliocentrism in order to shorten the main biography, and keep that article focussed on science, without frequent edit wars or vandals. Please edit the remaining, hastily shortened section, and expand the new article. -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Stephen Hawking also expounded this in his book, On The Shoulders of Giants, which he states Corpernicus' fears of publication were due to scientist and not clergymen, and also that Copernicus felt his theories needed to be perfected through futher study. GnothiChristos 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernican heliocentrism separated 

message: To cover also the work of Copernicus as monetary reformer, which has merits of ist own, I've linked an "forgotten" article: Copernicus and coin reform. There, also the ever-popular political/national backgound conflicts had been discussed on Talk:Copernicus and coin reform. -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus as monetary reformer 

message: Copernicus (latin, real name was Koppernigk) was a Prussian. Thorn and Frauenburg were cities of the Prussian Confederation who rebelled against the Teutonic Order and requested the protection of King Kazimierz IV Jagiellon. These cities became part of the Kingdom of Poland as Royal Prussia after the Thirteen Years' War. So the denomination as Prussian is neutral as far as I can see. Any objections? 
Additionally, the Province of Prussia was never a part of Germany (neither Holy Roman Empire nor German Confederation) until 1871. The population was mixed linguistically. In the region of Prussia the people spoke mostly German in major cities, Kashubian or Polish in rural areas, and Lithuanian in the area of Memel. 
Prussian is neutral because it combines both the Polish and the German heritage. It refers to a historical region.
--Der Eberswalder 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, was proposed before as someone pointed out who deleted your entry and moved it to Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality. You want to use Casimir IV Jagiellon and Kingdom of Poland (1320–1385) (for the situation of his birthtime), though. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These people were all Prussians, regardless who governed them or which language they spoke. The part where Koppernigk came from was called Polish Prussia or Royal Prussia (western part). The other part was Brandenburgian Prussia or Ducal Prussia (eastern part). Those who revert should say why they revert. Prussian is a term like Kashubian or Lithuanian. It is different from German or Polish, this is not the issue here. This guy was undisputedly a Prussian (in the old sense of this word). --Der Eberswalder 00:48, 14 January 9th 2007 (UTC)
The reason I reverted was because there was no consensus/discussion regarding an insertion of nationality on the nationality talk page. You should wait a bit more before changing the article, allow a discussion to take place. My edit summary could have been a lot better, I'm sorry for that. Philip Gronowski Contribs 01:00, 14 January 9th 2007 (UTC)
Rather than be in favour of putting the word "Prussian" in front of "astronomer" until there's disagreement, I'm against "Prussian" as long as it doesn't have widespread agreement. While Prussian may be the most accurate one, the term "German" often springs to mind, as well. This feeling would be compounded by the fact that the German name was highlighted and put first. Without a doubt, not everyone would tolerate that and therefore the previous version, probably the fairest as it avoids asserting any nationality-point of view, should be kept until there's agreement otherwise. For that purpose, it would be advisable for you to read the archives and then argue on that basis, that is, if you haven't come to another conclusion by then, which, I hope, you might. I'm not talking of the "right" point of view concerning his nationality, nor confirm or deny that "Prussian" might be the most accurate version from a historical point of view. I'm talking of a conclusion in special regard to the dispute. Sciurinæ 11:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: His name was Nikolas Koppernigk. He later latinized it into Copernicus. The part of Prussia (region) he came from was a part of Poland (Royal Prussia), so he was a Polish citizen from a German-speaking Hanse town. Nobody disagrees about this. --Der Eberswalder 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody against Prussian as denomination? 

message: There is no doubt he was Polish astronomer, according to encyclopedia Britannica. Its removal is inappropriate and near to vandalism. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn! You think that's the first time someone's thought of that? This argument comes up all the time; it really is better just not to mention nationality. You may believe you are correct, but if you insist on pressing your claims you'll be commiting yourself to a revert war which will waste lots of time and end only in the page getting admin protected. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research is now the policy of wikipedia ? Britannica is not the source anymore ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I await the moment when all the people in the world will be Earthish or Globish and there will be no dispute on the topic which nation can acquire the splendor of an individual. 83.9.14.35 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: logologist|Talk 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute goes far beyond wikipedia and has started long before computers existed. To decide this dispute, books were written, monuments erected and celebrations held. You can't believe Wikipedia is to join a side, do you? Has NPOV lost all its meaning on Wikipedia? You also can't have read the talk page if you believe that Wikipedia is alone in not proclaiming he was Polish. Worse, you might have read the talk page and decided to restart the same discussion over and over to make it impossible for anyone to read the whole page and cause everyone trying to fall asleep and drive others to despair by its Sisyphean repetition of arguments. Sciurinæ 12:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we take up a discussion of the supposed Polish ancestry of the German, Friedrich Nietzsche?  I think that has about as much merit as endeavoring to make a German out of Copernicus.  As I mentioned in the "Copernicus" article's "Nationality" section — in a comment which you saw fit to delete — Polish history is replete with patriotic Poles of German extraction who have contributed much to every walk of Polish life.  One of the more striking examples is the German-born and -trained Admiral Józef Unrug, who saved the Polish Navy at the outbreak of World War II and, on becoming a German prisoner-of-war, refused to speak German to German World War I brothers-in-arms and Nazi bigwigs who sought to win him over to the Nazi cause.  This, when Unrug never fully mastered Polish. In short, ancestry and language-spoken do not necessarily, of themselves, define a person's identity.  Copernicus' defense of Olsztyn against the Teutonic Order sufficiently demonstrates his loyalties.  logologist|Talk 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche? The myth of his Polish ancestry was disproven. Maybe Chopin would be more comparable concerning questionable single-nationality. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish astronomer 

message: As it is standard for people to be categorised by nationality, excluding categories here does not have an appearance of neutrality at all, but is prima facie evidence that Wikipedia is taking a biased point of view. If necessary add multiple nationalities. I don't give a hoot about what nationality he was, but the current "solution" is no solution at all, but rather an admission of failure and an accomodation with biased agendas - and anyone familiar with how Wikipedia normally categorises people is liable to notice that. CalJW 00:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please familiarise yourself with the previous discussion here before taking drastic measures on this subject such as putting up tags. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This article contains more information on the subject's nationality than any other I've seen on wikipedia (did you overlook the section?). Readers are to make up their own minds what nationality he has. To recall: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." It is therefore not our job to assert any of them, or even the intermediate "Cat:Polish astronomer, Cat:German astronomer", as you suggested when you said "If necessary add multiple nationalities". It is also in line with Wikipedia:Categorization: "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. A list might be a better option." Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have any specific concerns about accuracy, please don't hesitate to point them out. Omitting the assertion of nationality is not misleading at all. Quite the opposite, the assertion of nationality is misleading people about the issues relevant to the life and reputation of Copernicus. I've partly compared the state of the article in the version of one year ago and the difference is relatively small. Since you admit that you didn't have "any expertise on the topic" and because the article certainly isn't "deliberately incomplete and incorrect", I've also removed that tag. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't have any expertise on the topic, and no interest, but claim that the article is "deliberately incomplete" and "seeks to mislead people"? And you "remember" it having been "complete and informative" "a long time ago". I'd say these statements of yours deserve to be tagged for POV and lack of accuracy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality categories must be restored

message: I have added a POV tag, due to the deliberate removal of the nationality information, without which this cannot be a full and unbiased article. CalJW 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article contains more information on the subject's nationality than any other I've seen on wikipedia (did you overlook the section?). Readers are to make up their own minds what nationality he has. To recall: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." It is therefore not our job to assert any of them, or even the intermediate "Cat:Polish astronomer, Cat:German astronomer", as you suggested when you said "If necessary add multiple nationalities". It is also in line with Wikipedia:Categorization: "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. A list might be a better option." Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: And an accuracy tag because the article is deliberately incomplete and incorrect and thus seeks to mislead people about the issues relevant to the life and reputation of Copernicus. When I last saw this article - a long time ago because I have no interest in this topic - as I remember things the article seemed complete and informative, and it needs to be returned to that state. But I can't do that myself because I don't have any expertise on the topic. CalJW 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any specific concerns about accuracy, please don't hesitate to point them out. Omitting the assertion of nationality is not misleading at all. Quite the opposite, the assertion of nationality is misleading people about the issues relevant to the life and reputation of Copernicus. I've partly compared the state of the article in the version of one year ago and the difference is relatively small. Since you admit that you didn't have "any expertise on the topic" and because the article certainly isn't "deliberately incomplete and incorrect", I've also removed that tag. Sciurinæ 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't have any expertise on the topic, and no interest, but claim that the article is "deliberately incomplete" and "seeks to mislead people"? And you "remember" it having been "complete and informative" "a long time ago". I'd say these statements of yours deserve to be tagged for POV and lack of accuracy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy tag

message: The current version of the opener is:
: Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the astronomer who formulated the first modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.
That may be a little too Eurocentric.  Perhaps the following more modest statement would put the work in the context of the development of European science:
: Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first European astronomer to formulate a modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.
I don't have any specific examples of non-European thoughts on helicentricism, but in the absence of an exhaustive trawl I'd prefer to remain conservative in the claim. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The astronomer who formulated..."

message: The Guidance on style for the lead section states that it should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and that includes the fact that he is honoured by both 'contestants'. The main points of the article are well covered, though maybe economy side being just a link is under-representative. As his nationality is not mentioned there, the last paragraph could include the fact that he was born into a well off family that ensured a good education and his style of living (burgher). Then stating that he has been honoured by both Germany and Poland and that the debate surrounding his nationality is ongoing would tie up those areas of the article which are not encompassed already. Any offers for writing it up?--Alf melmac 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for Wikipedia to mention the question nationality in the opener, because Copernicus' claim to fame is not his being born in this or that nation or region, but his existence as a cosmopolitan European cosmologist, immersed in the philosophy of his times, in  communication with the best minds available to any European at the time, who formulated the first modern heliocentric cosmological model.  The question of his actual nationality (while being a legitimate one) isn't important enough to put into the opener. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point about his nationality not being his claim to fame and I appreciate that the purpose of the lead is not give 'a taster' to the article, however I understated the non-inclusion of the coin reform, that does need mention. We also need to decide whether that stublet gets merged or not. I must disagree about nationality not being an important point,  checks again to see exactly how long that section is :p)  having appeared on both of those nations' coinage would seem a good way of couching it. That may also provide the added benefit of assuaging the continual Polish-German push-pull that the article experiences.--Alf melmac 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: io:Nikolaus Kopernicus - Thank you,João Xavier, from Ido Wikipedia 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add the link to the Ido Wikipedia

message: Why does the fact that Copernicus was a fully confirmed astrologer keep getting deleted from the article?  You all aren't trying to whitewash history are you?  Astrology and astronomy were still largely one and the same thing during Copernicus' time; the split between the two fields wasn't that far off from his death date, though.  --172.145.6.40 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, Johannes Kepler as well. As science progresses, the view on each scientific discipline changes as well over time. --Der Eberswalder 11:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus was an astrologer -- put this fact in the article 

message: Who will remove the doubled fragment:
"The father of Copernicus, possibly a Germanized Slav [8], had been a citizen of Cracow, but left the (then) capital of Poland in 1460 to move to Thorn/Toruń (German/Polish). That Hanseatic city was also part of the Prussian Confederation, which, some decades before Copernicus' birth, had tried to gain independence from the Teutonic Knights who had ruled the area for two hundred years, but imposed high taxes that were hindering economic development. This led to the Thirteen Years' War and the Second Treaty of Thorn of 1466: Thorn/Toruń and Prussia's western part, called "Royal Prussia", became connected to the Kingdom of Poland, which had supported the uprising, while the eastern part remained under the administration of the Teutonic Order, later to become "Ducal Prussia" 
from the article? --202.167.254.68 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit.  Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled fragment 

message: "Statue of a seated Copernicus holding a armillary sphere" - ∅ (∅), 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit.  Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in caption 

message: I would request that the article include the fact that Copernicus is commemorated as a teacher by the Lutheran Church on May 24, and that he be added to the :Category:Lutheran saints. Thank you. John Carter 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit.  Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as Lutheran "saint" 

message: The "seven parts of Copernicus' theory" could use some improvement. Part 1 (There is no one center in the universe) seems to contradict Part 3 (The center of the universe is near the sun). I suggest changing them to:
:The major parts of Copernican theory are:
: Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
: The center of the universe is near the Sun.
: Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
: The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
: Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
The existing seven parts were quoted in this Wired article [], but I think that the article is a little misleading. Roger 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now unprotected; feel free to make this edit.  Ral315 » 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a coward, but I can count.  The text says "seven parts" but only six are on the list.  I won't try to fix the article because I don't know what the right fix is, not having access to the Compendium.  If the Compendium has seven points, the seventh should be listed; if there are different ways of reading the Compendium, then the word "seven" should be changed to "six." Martin X. Moleski, SJ 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven parts of Copernican theory 

message: The third of the paragraphs attributed to Copernicus is not by him. It is from the Foreword to De Revolutionibus by Andreas Osiander, and it's claim that the task of astronomy is merely to "save the appearances" is famously at odds with the pains taken by Copernicus to argue that the Earth really does move (e.g., in the second quoted paragraph). Please can someone correct this mis-attribution?
It would be useful to be specify the source of the other quoted paragraphs (otherwise they might be read as one extract). The first is from Copernicus' preface. It is also a bit misleading, as it might appear that C is about to deny that he is trying to do anything so "insane". (Actually the thrust of the rest of Preface is "but truth will out and history will vindicate me").
The second quoted paragraph is from De Revolutionibus Book 1, Chapter 8.
PaddyLeahy 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I've been around long enough to do it myself. I just deleted the Osiander quote; it doesn't seem appropriate in a list of quotes celebrating Dr C. Sometime I'll come back and add something authentic by C. to compensate, e.g. his praise of the Sun.
PaddyLeahy 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I strongly object to that. So we don't care to inform of what had been the predominant thought for millenia before this guy's idea. Fine, I'll fuck off. No wonder wiki is full of shit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.147.29 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unecessary intrusion 

message: This is my first post on W. - Just wanted to mention that I don't think C's father was actually a porn star, though I could be wrong!  Will leave it to a more experienced editor to make the change.Unclemarkle 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! You certainly weren't wrong, this was a case of vandalism. It has been reverted, thanks for your note! --JoanneB 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copernicus's father's occupation 

message: In this edit, the editor said: Application of Gdansk (Danzig) rule again. Explain please.--Toolsbadly 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed three of the Polish cites as the ones I checked either then went on to say soemthing about Italy - erm, that is exactly the same problem with "Poland" (called Kingdom of Poland as Bohemia is for the historical area, rather than "Czech Republic" etc.) [ Szymon Starowolski wrote in the first large Polish biography, Scriptorum Polonicorum, Nicolaus Copernicus, Torunii in Prusia natus, patre Nicolao Copernico, matre vero quae erat germana sonor Lucae a Watzelrod Toruniesnsis, episcopi Varmiensis, praeclare de Repulica Polonorum meriti in causa Cruciferorum]. Would anyone like to point me to a map made in the 15 century which originally has the word "Italy" used for the area? Another one that I removed had inconsistencies in naming - Bohemian then stating "another Czech"... I have not finished going through these sources but I'm not betting that I'll find any difference in approach. Icannot trace "Central Europe Journal", ISBN number might have helped.--18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I am unable to check any of the other sources, I did a search for "Copernicus+born+hanseatic" and came up with three pages of books which see reference thus, the removal of a atmospheric-descriptor only to replace it with a nationalistic-location is silly, many of the books that I came up with have BOTH. Sure we don't call the USA by any trade organisation name, but then, we're not talking the modern country of Poland, and I'd sure as hell object if you described Queen Alliquippa as born in the United States, which is effectively what is being done here. Outrageous.--SmallPotatoes 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite right, neither was Poland "founded" as the Poland that exists today, that's a gross oversimplification, this in not the en.simple, we can give the readers the real deal. No problem with calling cities by their current names, no problem calling countries that have not changed at all the modern name, Poland is not a simple case. here's some (simplified but they illustrate the point adequately) historical maps. Though the United States were founded, the first Polish 'state' was created or formed, that's the sort of oversimplification a definitive edition should avoid, which is what we should be striving for, we should choose our words very carefully. The city of Torun was most definately a Hanseatic League member, the country had definately 'recently switched' to the polish crown, these facts, carefully worded were meant to give life to a sentence otherwise devoid of other cultural (read as influencing) factors. Painting a picture in words for those who can appreciate it. I wouldn't have had a problem with you altering the line, or to remove the 'recently switched' to add "Kingdom of Poland" if that is the given title for that land area for that date, that might have been in some way trying to find a compromise if one must be made, but as stands, it's BORN IN POLAND, no cultural points of reference, no mentions of the richness, habit or influence of the area, meh, as it stands it's 'let's keep it obfuscated and nice and simple for the folks at home'. See also the point I make about being able to find enough cites for Hanseatic to for us to not have a cite war.--SmallPotatoes 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I forgot to do "Italy" - again it's oversimplification, if one says he went to study in Florence rather than Siena, it not only makes a big difference in understanding what kind of education he might have had and the culture he would then be influenced by, but also avoids the misreading that will invariably occur if an unqualified "Italy" is used, he studied in Padua.--SmallPotatoes 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to prove it is :s I forgot to reply why "Italy" is insufficient - posted above.--SmallPotatoes 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italy in detail would insufficient-but Italy is not the matter here, as I wrote before-it is the name of general location. When writing about the studies-you are right, specific name should be given. But when writing about other things Italy is of no importance.--StepPol 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that edit was good, thanks, and I like the linking. I'd still like to press for the inclusion of "Hanseatic", it does in itself give info as to the kind of place he was to grow up in. The amount of cites you provided is too much and clutters, cite seven or whichever you think the most respected and/or checkable, with the previous cite for Hanseatic would be a nice partnering, if you think that's state-able and do-able.--SmallPotatoes 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town names 

message: The List of Poles claims that Poles "by 2005 had attained a world-wide population of over 53 million" when Poland itself had a population of less than 39 million. The list, among many others, also claims "Mikołaj Kopernik (Nicolaus Copernicus)" as a Pole. As long as this claims persists, the List of Germans will contain Nikolaus Kopernikus (and others). -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, as far as the first part, do you know what "world-wide" means? # of people of particular group world wide > # of people of particular group in a particular country, since # of people of particular group world wide = # of people of particular group in a particular country + # of people of particular group in all the other countries. Gauss is rolling over in his grave.radek 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Poles]] 

message: Copernicus' theories were based on aryabhatta's
:Provide the references that Copernicus read Aryabhatta (whoever he was) or at least knew his works. Szopen 14:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rest of the world???? 

message: They were added a long time ago and, if I remember correctly, after some discussion removed again. Now they're added again, without prior consensus to include them. Though I don't know what to think of them, the empty link would have to be edited out anyway, so I've chosen to remove them altogether again from the sensitive lead and would like to ask the person who added them politely to keep them out until there's agreement to include them. Sciurinæ 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's decided to have both the names in those languages, please don't link the Polish name as it goes to a disambiguation page which is more than irritating.--Alf melmac 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicolaus Copernicus is the name under which his major work was published, and by which he is known. There is no point to add other name versions in the intro. The Nationality section covers the use of names etc. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. At the moment, the names are both (somewhat awkwardly maybe?) put into the nationality-section. Sciurinæ 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish and German versions of Copernicus's name in the lead section 

message: This vote is totally unprepared to decide anything, In a proper voter there should be for example discussions on what to vote on (i.e. which options are there), how to count the votes, and how long the vote goes. Neither of which was done here. Doing it after the vote will just lead into more discussions and fighting. The vote was also not announced anywhere besides this talk page and possibly some selected user talk pages. Plus, this topic is a hot candidate for POV pushing, meatpuppets, etc. Overall, I believe this vote will not solve anything. Also, didn't we have a vote/discussion on this before, and the consensus was not to use the nationality in the lead? Why do we need another vote (except that someone did not like the outcome of the previous vote). This will be lots of discussions but not solve anything -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that this vote was totally unprepared, and thus is totally meaningless.  No one will be bound by its results.  Still, I think this poll will be useful to get a basic idea of where the people currently interested in this page stand. If there is a significant indication that the current concensus version (no nationality) is no longer supported, then we may start formal voting procedures.  But it does not look like this will happen, as the option that is getting the most votes is the one that does not mention nationality (i.e. the status quo). Balcer 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the next, winner is Polish astronomer but it is close to no nationality. I would prefer Britannica of course. Can we start formal vote between those two or we will respect this ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight in favour of "Polish", four against (one third). Six in favour of "European", three against (one third). So how can a decision in favour of "Polish" be "per talk"? And since when was there any agreement that the "vote" would decide anything? The previous agreement was only disrupted by some unestablished users undermining the previous and viable compromise. Now I hear the comparison of this "consensus dispute" to the "Gdansk/vote" coming from the creator of the "consensus dispute" who spends a lot of his time deleting the German-language names in Austrian-Czech-related articles in a way, well, he wouldn't love the Gdansk/vote be applied in those articles at all. Against the grain of the previous settlement, he voted for "Polish" here and against all other choices, and inserted "Polish" in the article at a time when both "Polish" and "European" had the same per cent of agreement/disagreement. I do understand why there are votes about the existence/non-existence of articles (VfD). I wouldn't know how to find a compromise (half-delete?) or to describe the arguments for and against the existence of the article somewhere in the article. The same goes for the Gdansk/vote. You can't put in an elaborate explanation of the POVs as naming of an article or city, nor can you leave the name out. The same goes, of course, for article naming. But in the case of Copernicus, it is entirely functional to leave out the (nationality) adjective in the lead section rather than assert one, and describe the views per WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view policy as a section. Because we need a geographical limitation in the sentence concerned, as explained by Alf, it is perfectly feasible to agree on the higher, geographical level, the continent Europe. In fact, it is the only thing we can say with certainty. Sciurinæ 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously Tulkolahten now turns to revert warring here as well, giving up on the "consensus dispute", which means that the only person with strong belief in the significance of the "vote" has changed his mind now, too. The intention of this "consensus dispute" was not to settle the dispute as claimed, but evidently to serve as the basis for  overriding the previous solution. It still had some value in showing where people stood on the issue. Sciurinæ 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If I could reconstruct the sentence to allow for the comparative further afield without having "European" before "astronomer" I would be happy with this, but the comparison needs to be stated clearly and this option makes that trickier. You see at the moment the first line reads "...was an astronomer who formulated the first explicitly heliocentric model of the solar system", now I consider that wrong, I think that honour is Aristarchus', Copernicus is the first European astronomer to formulate a modern heliocentric theory of the solar system.--Alf melmac 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be better from Europe rather then European as it could imply European identity, something that is highly controversial and politically loaded.--Molobo 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with that.--Alf melmac 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *it's not too broad, and we are not saying he is from Norway, Moldavia or Turkey (the latter isnt in Europe FYI), we are simply stating he is from Europe.  In no way does saying he is from Europe mean he is from any of those nations you mentioned. We are discussing the lead, not the whole article, later on it can go into detail about where he is from, we are only discussing the lead here.--Jadger 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jadger Turkey is in Europe, especially during Mikołaj Kopernik's life. Please consult informative sources before making such definite claims. As it seems such term would involve so many different cultures and  traditions that it isn't really informative in my view.--Molobo 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey not in Europe? Wow, what ignorance! I would never appear on the WIKI again, if I was him! Space Cadet 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to say good bye, Space Cadet, some will miss you. During Copernicus' lifetime, in 1520, the Ottoman Empire covered not only over parts of Europe, but also parts of Asia and Africa . Was Copernicus an Egyptian astronomer like Ptolemy? The History of Poland (1385–1569) providee only this map of Poland_and_Lithuania_1387 showing that in 1387, Poland or "lenna Korony"(?) was "married to" the Black Sea coast, somewhere near modern day Turkey and Moldavia, covering who knows how many modern states. As Catholics get a second marriage not by divorce but only by "death do us part", one assumes that before Poland's wedding to the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea must have deceased and turned into the Dead Sea? Anyway, the birthplace of Copernicus, Thorn, was was founded outside of Poland and remained there for a quarter of a millennium, getting under Polish influence only few years before his birth. Funnily, the word Gdansk appears where the town of Danzig was for over half a millennium. So, as per Molobo, Poland was "too broad and not possible to define". If a Polish astronomer, was he from Lwow, Bialogrod or Kilia? Even Moldavia or Turkey? Or rather a well defined area known as Prussia which was partitioned a few years before his birth?-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Still here. Never patronized anybody that Turkey was not in Europe. Space Cadet 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is probably one of the more important ones on Wikipedia in the area of science, and this is the level of argument we are stooping to?  To give you an idea of what is at stake here, this talk page was mentioned in mainstream media at least once (in New Yorker, one of the prominent American magazines).  Wikipedia's credibility is being judged by what level of argument is being employed here. So, please stop, and get serious, unless you want to become better known as the proponent of childish arguments like the one just provided above.  Whatever option you want to advocate, find sources to back it up.  If you can show that scholarly works have reached a concensus and refer to him as a Prussian astronomer, we can use that formulation.  Otherwise, all we are engaging in is original research, which is obviously not allowed. Balcer 02:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand what the rant is about above by Matthead-surely just because Ottoman Empire had other possesions doesn't cancel out its European ones. As to Poland-it was made out of many faiths not only Catholic, please consult your sources before making such definitive statements. As to Torun-it was a old Slavic settlement invaded and occupied by Teutonic Knights.
--Molobo 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't see a consensus here, if any I would be going for the least contested, which I see as European. As I said before the original line, kindly provided by Mr Sidaway was corrupted and the claim was not correct. I still think his line, that was stable for a while, is best, but to add a small section about both nations have recognised him in their currencies. It ties in nicely with nationality section and with Copernicus' role in currency itself.--Alf melmac 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This vote is totally unprepared and unneeded

message: 200px|thumb|right|Bust of Nicolaus Copernicus at the United Nations headquarters, New York City. Please kindly add my/this image contribution with caption to the Nicolaus Copernicus article.  Thank you. - Dragonbite 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.Dragonbite 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My image contribution

message: It was Aristarchus of Samos who proposed the heliocentric system first, not Copernicus.--Dojarca 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of the earth, and measured the size and distance of the Moon and Sun, in a treatise which has survived. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times larger than the Earth. Plutarch mentions the 'followers of Aristarchus' in passing, so it is likely that there are other astronomers in the Classical period who also espoused heliocentrism. --Dojarca 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heliocentric system 

message: Ive reprotected the page as the edit war has flared up again. Please try to come to a consensus on the talk page. MastCell Talk 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to keep it protected indefinitely, as the edit warring is as old as the article (in fact, centuries older, then on paper), and will continue. Any useful changes can be discussed on talk. Besides, it was semi-proteced against plain vandalism often also. See also Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same story again, going on for about 200 years. There will never be a consensus. Permanent protection please! -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could but I won't - it would be inappropriate for me to do so as I have edited the page in response to editors consistently fucking up the claim to fame by trying to insert locality without further thought to the sentence. Pretty sick of saying that now.--Alf melmac 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that edit protection is an overused tool on Wikipedia, and it should never be applied indefinitely, unless MAYBE if you had a professional in the field write a good draft of the article first.  The edit warring will be a problem, but I think it would be worth trying some compromise sentences to see if anything can stick.  It surely has to be more effective ounce for ounce than arguments here. 70.15.116.59 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I disagree with the first sentence of this article.  I don't know whether Mikołaj Kopernik was a Swede or a Slovene, but as the article already notes, Aristarchos of Samos advocated heliocentrism 17 centuries earlier.  Is the claim that Aristarchos didn't propose a "real" heliocentric model?  Is the claim that Aristarchos wasn't an astronomer?  Is the claim that Aristarchos wasn't European?  Is this because pre-Christians aren't Europeans, or because Samos is an island?  If the latter, was Napoleon European? — Randall Bart (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is it because his theory is not explicitly heliocentric? I've made this point previously and suggest the word "modern" be used, as was in Mr Sidaway's adopted but now corrupted sentence, (see above).--Alf melmac 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristarchos 

message: I stayed completely out of this year's debate because I'd already expressed my view last year.
I'd just like to say that the current article seems very fair and even-handed with regard to Copernicus's ostensible 'nationality.' If only today's hyper-nationalists would learn to think of themselves as Europeans, as I imagine Copernicus did. Sca 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In retrospect

message: Apologies for adding to the back-and-forth of the lead, but I felt that the version I reverted went beyond the "Polish" issue when it modified the third paragraph (about earlier theories). Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your efforts are most appreciated. It's always the same (banned) user:Serafin, who believes he can reach the same here with this tactic as at Bureaucracy, the argument being persistence. Sciurinæ 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, Jesus, not a riddle. Well ... you are obviously Andrew , written by "Andrew" and searching again for "Andrew" in the link leads to ... "serafin". Sciurinæ 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: Did Greek, Indian, and Muslim savants, centuries before Copernicus, formulate a heliocentric theory or did they just try to? At any rate, we should add a source either way. Sciurinæ 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Aristarchus and Eratosthenes for more information.  Both knew the Earth revolved around the Sun, but although Aristarchus' trigonometry made sense his measurements weren't good.  Eratosthenes' estimate for the distance to the sun is cited by Eusebius - it can be translated two ways, but one is correct within 1% of the actual distance. 70.15.116.59 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heliocentric theories: Reiteration or new?

message: I am probably beating a dead horse, but why can't we have both German and Polish spellings of the name in the lead? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Polish language name is a very dead horse on English Wikipedia, indeed. He used many different spellings of his name during his lifetime, but obviously not one coined in a foreign language well after his death. In German, Nicolaus Cop(p)ernicus was/is also in use, BTW. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead horse, or Polish/German names in the lead

message: I agree with Saturday. I feel uncomfortable restoring changes that might correct mistakes or make mistakes and presume that so do others. Cleary, the good changes should stay and the bad ones should be swept away. But what is an improvement is not easy to tell if the authors don't give any hints. I know that for some editors that will seem to be a waste of editing time, but they shouldn't be surprised if they look at the article a little while later and their change has been replaced by another edit or reverted because few would defend a change whose correctness is unknown. At least then that change should be elaborated on. I know it's not fair to say who should start. However, right now it would be  up to Matthead to convince us of this change. Sciurinæ 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, "this change" comprises 3 intermediate edits, the latter two   being uncontroversial (or are they?!), while for the first (rv - Please be more specific), I requested comments by Saturday as he reverted 12 changes of mine, some of them being uncontroversial formatting improvements (missing blanks etc.), or edits made and explained earlier     . After interference of the now blocked 207.range IP, I reverted back to the intermediate good faith edit by an anon . I can understand that it's hard to keep track of all those changes during edit wars, but then it was me who repeatedly had requested (semi-)protection (see above), with underwhelming support from others I have to say. So, please, would someone reinstate the uncontroversial edits of mine (if any)? And explain the rejection of the others? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain your changes 

message: Could someone please explain to me how :Category:People from Pomerania and :Category:People from Olsztyn relate to Copernicus? Is it really necessary to include :Category:People from Toruń? -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories