Jump to content

Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

HJ -- that wasn't "information about his studies" that was an unordered list of facts that you were using to try to prove your theory about Copernicus' nationality. We have gone over this topic many times. You clearly do not understand that nationality and citizenship were very differently understood in Copernicus' time that they are today. Moreover, you don't want to understand -- you simply want to try to force some misled artificial construct into this article because that's the only way your world view can function. Please try to be more straightforward and do what you are saying you're doing. Otherwise, is smacks of intellectual dishonesty. JHK

I am posting the info on Copernicus here, which was removed by JHK from the article Nicolaus Copernicus:

Why you ,JHK, an recent American professor, want to suppress important information. This (and many other attempts to suppress information) is as much a puzzle to me, as your constant insistence on using Polish place names (used since 1945 Soviet take-overs) for German places, when on the other hand you keep writing that original names are supposed to be translated into English language here at wikipedia.

Do you do this on your own or is this a American University System -described action ?

In 1491 Copernicus entered Krakow university, and here he met astronomy for the first time, thanks to his teacher Albert Brudzewski. This science soon fascinated him, as his books (now in Uppsala's library) show. After four years and a brief stay in Thorn, he moved to Italy, where he studied law at Bologna's university. His uncle financed his education and wished for him to become a bishop as well.

"In Bologna's "Annales of the German Nation of 1496" on page 141 Is recorded:Nicolaus Kopperlingk de Thorn and a registration fee of 9 Grosseten (Groschen). This identifies his field of studies. The Natio Germanorum only educated lawstudents at that time, and only those, whose native language was German. Copernicus also studied as Padua. A doctor diplom of 1503 was found in Ferrara, which documents Nicolaus Copernicus from Prussia, who studied at Bologna and Padua... While studying canon and civil law, he met Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara, a famous astronomer. He followed his lessons and became a disciple and assistant." user:H.J.

Maybe you could just try to make sense. It's enough to say that he studied law at Bologna. If you add the bit about Bologna's "Annales of the German Nation", you are referring to something that must be explained. Since the title isn't even sensible English (Annales isn't English, but annals is) one has to question the source. What exactly is the Natio Germanorum? this is unclear from what you've written. Where is the proof that it only accepted students whose native language was German -- could it have been German speakers? Was this part of the university of Bologna?

HJ, no one is trying to cover anything up. Unfortunately, what you want to put in just doesn't make a lot of sense and opens up more questions than it answers. Those questions might fit in a book on Copernicus (maybe), but not a brief encyclopedia article. And again, the way you have written it (that is, in a way that implies that Copernicus was German in the modern sense of the word) is meant to mislead readers into making assumptions that just aren't accurate. To do this in public is to encourage a kind of dishonesty. Copernicus may well have spoken German as his first language. That doesn't mean that his allegiance was to a non-existent Germany or to a germanic Prussia. It's just wrong to imply something when there are lots of other factors that make that implication suspect.

Oh -- and the Polish names are used when they are used because that's what the cities are called in English today. It doesn't matter what my grandfather learned to call them (for example, Danzig) -- it's what they are now called that counts. That said, an article on St. Petersburg, would include the name changes to Petrograd and Leningrad within the article -- and if I were talking about the city in 1950, I'd call it Leningrad, because that's what the city was officially called at that time. With Danzig, I'm not positive that the Polish-speaking inhabitants didn't call it Gdansk or one of the Latin names in, say 1400 -- are you? There probably wasn't agreement then, because educated people often used Latin. But if you read the Gdansk article, it's clear that English speakers called it Danzig till 1945, and that the German name was more commonly used for the city. But we don't call it that any more, and that's what counts here. JHK

HJ, maybe this will help, since it's not touchy for you. THere are some islands off the coast of Argentina that a huge number of the locals and especially the neighbors call the Malvinas. But the official name of the islands is the Falklands. That's the name that all English-speaking countries recognize as the official name. If I were to continuously refer to those islands as the Malvinas on the wikipedia, it could be taken as a statement that the wikipedia believed that the UK had no claim to those islands. By the same token, people on either side of the political fence have different names for the country whose official name is Northern Ireland. By using the official name, we stay as neutral as possible -- although in this case, staunch Republicans would certainly object to that choice. JHK

To JHK, I thought, that you did some research into Hanseatic League cities when you started writing something about it. Apparently you are not aware of the fact, that Hanseatic League cities, had a requirement, to be a burgher of the city, one had to be a German language native speaker. This was certified. Thorn was a Hanseatic League city and took part in Hansa Days until 1669, so did Danzig. Elbing dropped out a few years prior to that, because of the English trade. There were no Polish people living in the cities of Thorn, Danzig nore Elbing. The Copernicus or rather the Nicolai family is recorded to have lived in the center of the city, well within the city walls. And as I wrote previously somewhere Nicolaus signed into the German school in Bologna for German language native speakers as Kopperlingk, after his father's business of dealing with copper.

There was no written Polish language until the 16th century. Therefore whatever was written down by who knows what in 1400 was not Polish language. Perhaps something that looks like Gdansk was written by a Danish or in Danish language: Dansk person. Beside the Hanseatic League cities all had Hansa Seals and the Hansa Seals had/have Latinized names.

Lets stay with the subject and lets not jump from the Baltic Sea to South America.

user:H.J.

HJ -- either you want to deliberately misunderstand everything I say, which is simply rude, or you are incapable of understanding the points I make which is plain stupid and ignorant. I didn't say that Polish burghers, which would be citizens with full rights -- just inhabitants. AFAIK (and I could be wrong), there were colonies of traders from other countries often posted in Hansestaedte. As I remember, they were allowed little movement. Whatever the case, there is plenty of evidence for interaction between Polish and German speakers in the area which encompassed Thorn and Danzig. I am not concerned with whether or not it was written in Polish -- I only mentioned that Poles may have called it something different when speaking among themselves. Perhaps if these types of differentiations are too difficult for you to understand, you should take some remedial English (and history) courses. JHK

"The earliest evidence for Polish comes from various sorts of names for persons, places and tribes recorded in medieval Latin documents going back to the ninth century. From then until the fourteenth century other attestations can be found in other Latin texts, but these are mostly single lexical items. In the fourteenth century whole texts in Polish begin to appear, the earliest being religious in nature, for example, a collection of sermons and a translation of the Psalms. Medieval Polish is well attested through court depositions where reported speech is recorded in Polish. Portions of the bible were translated by the middle of the fifteenth century. Some of these early texts exhibit a rudimentary standaridization process. Printing arrived in 1513 and with it greater standardization of spelling. The sixteenth century--the Golden Age of Polish literature--saw the first printing of dictionaries, grammars, and spelling guides..." - UCLA Language Project

To 64... Here is a site about Polish language and literature http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/Polishli.html , also click on Polish literature beginnings in the 16th century. First bible in Polish language , also 16th century. http://www.worldscriptures.org/pages/polish.html Many of the so-called Polish kings did not speak Polish, nore live in Poland.

Please note: most websites today tell you about todays Poland, which includes a large part of German lands. For example one source says, that the first book in Poland was printed in 1475 in Wroclaw. Well, that was not in Poland, but in the Holy Roman Empire in Breslau, Silesia in Germany. user:H.J.

Hmm. The "one source" that erroneously says "that the first book in Poland was printed in 1475 in Wroclaw" is the "site about Polish language and literature" from Bartleby.com you gave as an authority in the preceding paragraph. Ortolan88

That is just one example of many for the confusion with "then" and "now" places . Just like the placenames are constantly changed in wikipedia to Polish names for German places, even though the places are still named the same in German language. user:H.J.

I believe I am heavily biased on this topic: I am for sure not interested in where Copernicus was from or in what his birthplace was or represented. At all.

I just want to read a correct, serious, mature, not-childish, not-ideological article on one of the main topics of an Encyclopedia. And I have seen that I'm not the only one.

After all the previous talk, especially the one in my talk page, I find deeply disturbing to read again such sillyness; please don't follow in this useless direction or I'll be voting for protecting this page. I could even find it offensive to ignore all what has been written before, as if it was dry air and nothing more. The previous discussions, indeed, had been written with attention to people's different positions, with care of interlocutors, and were meant to find a positive point of common sense. These chats are now consequently quite unrespectful toward us.

We created a separate page, time ago, all reserved to this marvellous sub-topic so, in case of unrestrainable need, please go there to develop nationalistic themes.

This article was conceived with great effort by many of us. These points were already discussed and nothing new is brought us today, so we still have the right to read the Wikipedian article as it was finally released in Wiki style. Of course, anything can be improved, but - believe me - we will need a really serious and scientific reason to change even one word in it, by now onwards. --Gianfranco

Gianfranco, mille Grazie!

i'm glad you're still around, especially since you were so instrumental in constructing what I thought was an article acceptable to all of us. As you can no doubt tell I have added little to the article (except a condensed mention of Copernicus' work on monetary reform) and tried to keep the article's integrity. Strangely enough, I also really don't care what Copernicus' nationality (a concept that really is anachronistic in the sense normally used here)was. I only care that incorrect interpretations and assumptions don't become the norm, because I want the wikipedia to be a credible body of information. JHK

I changed

He is generally considered to be Polish, but of German origins, although there is some debate on the subject among ethnic nationalists (See here).

to

There has been some debate on Copernicus' nationality.

My wife's father is Polish, and I love the RPN (Reverse Polish) calculators. Poland is a wonderful country. But please, let's try not to overwhelm the Copernicus article with debates over his nationality. He was born long ago and far away (from me), and he changed history with his solar-centric astronomy. He belongs to the world. --Ed Poor

Ed, I restored it, because this is part of a much larger debate, one that really touches the principles of the project. Copernicus IS generally regarded as Polish. But, in more recent years, there has arisen debate. In reality, it doesn't matter to persons of sense. It's fair to mention the debate, though, and link it to more discussion. Since it's a couple of lines out of a really long article, it's hardly overwhelming. It was also the only way we could manage to keep user:H.J. from polluting it with a bunch of propaganda. The most important thing, IMHO, is that the article be clear, neutral, and as accurate as we can make it.
For this last reason, I changed the really nice bit that I think Ortolan added on Royal Prussia to "Hanse city of Thorn". I looked, and if the map used to define where Thorn/Torun was is the map I think it was, it doesn't represent the area at the time of Copernicus' birth. We know that the city was a member of the Hanseatic League (and to a degree able to choose its own allegiance, though nominally under the auspices of the HRE), so I thought it best to go with the unarguable fact.
I also removed some duplicated links. I'll probably do some more clean-up of place-names later -- after we decide whether it's better to have the name in German, linked to the Polish named article, or whether to put the Polish naame in parentheses after each first occurrance. I vote for the former -- opinions from anyone else, please?? JHK
I vote we use the historical English name followed by the modern English name in parenthesis. Which may not follow either the German or the Polish. --rmhermen
Modern meaning current? would I look that up on the CIA site? JHK
Is it really true that Copernicus worked together with Albrecht on monetary reform? He worked with everybody, however he was driven force and during the war Copernicus and Albrecht were enemies.

Copernicus Uncle

Copernicus Uncles name was Lukasz Watzenrode and he was born in Krakow Poland. He wasnt German by and had no Von in his name. It should be corrected I keep correcting it but a certian admin seems to be abusing his powers.

I read many times that in Bologne there was no "Polish natio" and all Polish (English etc generally all "northern") students were therefore joining "German natio". Can anyone confirme whether in Bologne at time of Copernicus studies existed "Polish natio"? Natio means more than college, i think. Besides, if there is already separate article, why again add it here?@!?[[user::szopen]]

You wrote that there are no evidences that he spoke Polish. I wanna know who told you that? He was also a polish Polititian! His Father is polish and his mother German. There are no evidences for that he used German language as his first language! After 500 years you can`t prove it. If the German will call Kopernikus an Ethnik German, than the polish could call Nietsche an ethnik Pole, who was Born in Germany. Look at von Klausewitz. there is an polish origin in both names you never can denie! Nietsche hates the German, and looked for an polish origin. Would the Poles think in the same way as the German, they could find more Germans with a polish origin. And dont forget the the Jews. 200 years of German dominated history of East Europe is anough. The English uncritically believed every german version and looked very ironicaly on the polish.So please never write again so stupid things,about ethnik origin of Kopernik.The fact is he was an Loyal polish Polititian, like von Klausewitz a Prussian was. To discuss the ethnik origin is an insane joke. All we have are hints. I ask you what is Polish, what is German? You´ve forgot, that the most East Germans between Oder and Elbe are Slavic origin! So we could polemize all the day.......! To the Polish Nation you have so lot

I've read alot of Anti-German propaganda here in Wikipedia that seems to be mostly coming from Polish contributors. What worries me is the racist and nationalistic attitude these people show. Like the poster above they try to construct history along genetic lines like Germans vs. Slavs. But there are no such destinct lines. What we call "German" is mainly a cultural identity and not a gentical identity. "Germans" consists of Germans, Celts, Slavs, Romans and nowadays over 12% other etnicities from far away places like Turkey or Africa. Beeing slavic by genetics doesn't tell you anything about the cultural identity of a person. It is as absurd as claiming that there are no Americans but only Germans, English, Poles, Italians, etc. living in what we call the United States of America. No, they are Americans and not Germans or Poles anymore. Likewise is anybody who's practicing the German culture a German.

Will the two gentlepersons who are currently in a revert war please ask for mediation? That's we do nowadays instead of this kind of useless pollution of a needed article. Wikipedia:Mediation is where you can find out about the process. Or I'll just request that the page be locked in a day or so; or maybe somebody else will before then. The version that gets locked in will be at the whim of the sysop who does it, so your odds of getting your own version locked in are no better than a coin flip. Dandrake 19:48, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

The latest nationalist to assault this page made something that resembled a point. If Torun was in Poland then and is in Poland now -- or maybe "under Polish jurisdiction" would be more neutral -- the the phrase "then in Poland" is a little out of focus. I like "then, as now, in the territory [or under the jurisdiction] of Poland"; but it's a little pompous and invites new wars. Just thought I'd raise the question. Dandrake 00:30, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

RickK didn't like the editorial comment I placed in the HTML, and took it out. OK, so be it. Now, does he or anyone else have a workable approach the to the problem I was trying to address? Somebody comes in and sees that the text on Copernicus is WRONG and probably a piece of malicious [currently] German propaganda. He changes it and goes on his way, leaving it ready for the next visitor to find the new piece of malicious [now Polish] propaganda. Of course he doesn't go to the page history or the Talk page, not knowing about this stuff. Exactly what do we lose by placing, at the very point where he's about to make a change, a cautionary note? May I remind you that the ordinary reader will never see this text?

OK, it doesn't always work. Within a day or so another damn nationalist bozo came along and ignored it. (Though, as noted above, his point could be worth considering, here where it belongs.) Still, again, what do we lose by this?? If my wording is bad, which it is, written in the heat of seeing a fresh edit war, and re-written only 3 or 4 times to tone it down, let someone propose better wording. Or something. Anything. But is it really enough just to, in effect, revert my change without comment or discussion? Dandrake 01:10, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I just hate having embedded, hidden comments in the text. I've deleted it in every case where I've found it. If it's worth talking about, it's worth putting on the Talk page. RickK 01:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your last sentiment is a fine one. Would you like to get it across to the people who don't look at the talk page?
What the heck, we're having it demonstrated right now that no rational action will deter certain sorts of asshole. I like to believe that there are people who can be reached, provided some information is placed where it will reach them, but they will always be outnumbered by rabid Central European nationalists.
So here it is on the Talk page, as you want it to be: Hey, guys, discuss the nationality issue here first. Dandrake 07:56, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Folks, please try to find a compromise on the discussion page. I've protected the page.—Eloquence 05:14, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Let me make few points clear first: 1) Polish is cultural thing, not genetics. there were a lot of Poles whose fathers/mothers came from elsewhere.

2) Torun/Thorn was not under jurisdiction of Poland, it was part of Polish kingdom. You can't put it in other way without offensing historical truth.

3) Copernicus was therefore subject to Polish king, so he was "Pole". He was also "German" in the sense of his ethnicity. But i doubt that he saw anything wrong with that. If you would ask him "are you Pole?" He probably would answer yes, the same answer probably he would gave when asked if he was German.

4) Stop bashing Poles, for God sake. It's very annoying. Westerners tend to IGNORE Polish historians. Yes, Polish historians are biased. But you know what, German are biased too. Don't call Poles nationalist if we are only trying to present facts from Polish point of view, and neutral point of view citing German point of view. Both are valid.

5) it may be true that we Poles, _are_ oversensitive over such issues. But there were too many times used to show inherent inferiority of Poles or Slavs in general. During war people were persecuted for calling Copernicus Pole; It would be strange if that would not left trace on our psyche. Saying that it still doesn't mean that we are nationalist only ebcause we have different opinion than others.

Heh, and i though i would be able to stop to be involved in wikipedia for longer than month. If i wouldn't be at wikipedioholic club, i would join now... Szopen

Why don't we call him a Polish scientist ??

A scientist that is an American citizen born to American parents is called an American scientist. A scientist that is a Polish citizen born to Polish parents should be also called a Polish scientist. Mestwin 02:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poland had been for centuries a multi-ethnic country and a political nation, just like USA is today. All subject of Polish kings *were* Poles by definition, regardles of their ehnic origin. Copernicus' father moved from Cracow, Poland to Torun, Poland so he and his children are *Poles* by definition. It's is possible he had some ethnic background, but most of Poles have some. 217.96.26.45 22:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Torun, Poland - let's have it the simple way

There's no doubt that Copernicus was born in the city of Torun, Poland. in 15th century the city belonged to Chelmno Land (or Chelmno Voivodship), province of Royal Prussia, Kingdom of Poland. The standard format of referring to cities is town, country so let's have it the simple way Torun, Poland.

BTW. Torun together with the Chelmno Land was not the newly acquired province (such words are false and offensive). Torun was newly restored or newly liberated land. 217.96.26.45 22:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW. At the time Copernicus was born the city was usually spelled as Thorun and today it is spelled Toruń. This is the English Wikipedia, there is no need to used the city's 19th century German name of Thorn. 217.96.26.45 22:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uhm.. Yeti? I thought that "There is little doubt about his citizenship, but some argue over his origins" translate into Polish as "Nie ma watpliwosci tyczacych jesgo obywatelstwa, ale niektorzy wyklocaja sie o jego pochodzenie". Am I wrong?! Szopen

From 83.88.121.159 re Copernicus' nationality

(Moved by David Kernow from top of main article:)

This is a message to a more experienced Wikipedian. It should be clearly indicated that the objectivity of this article is disputed. I am neither German nor Polish but have once researched the issue of Copernicus' "nationality." His mother tongue was German. His mother was German and his father has been described as a "Germanized Pole." The notion of nationality had a different meaning back then, but asked to indicate his nationality at an Italian univeristy Copernicus stated "German." All his texts are written either in Latin or German. I do understand that Poles may feel strongly about "their" big-name scientist, but this is where Wikipedia can make a difference and correct the established mistake found in standard textbooks by, at the minimum, changing "Polish scientist" to "German-Polish scientist."

Just to note, that he was not asked about nationality in Italy. He signed to student corporatio, aka "natio". All Polish students were enlisting to German natio at this time. Szopen 12:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Have just altered nationality to read "Polish-German". Can there be a consensus on that?  Best wishes, David Kernow 13:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Better still – I hope – I have just rephrased the beginning of the article to remove any explicit mention of nationality (and, in a comment, added a request at the top of the article that editors do not make such mention).  David Kernow 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect: Fat chance. Look at the history of this article, and you'll find that its previous wording was not a matter of casual ignorance; it's the product of years of more or less bitter edit wars between German and Polish factions, each of which states its conclusions with great assurance and with much repetition of familiar arguments, after which they get tired for a moment and a compromise wording may get installed till the next attack. Look at the three Nationality-archives listed at the top of this page, and you'll find it all, including, I'm afraid, the arguments [83.88.121.159] cited. There have been times when I've taken the article off my watch-list because my interest in his scientific work had to give way to the need to avoid the irritation of the edit- and flame- wars. I'm entirely sympathetic to keeping out the nationality question, and I wish you luck in damping it down; but one gets to be cynical. I, too, have put a comment in the source code of the article asking for reason and good behavior on the matter (in my case, just asking everyone to go to the Talk page before editing), and within a day it had been deleted, not by a nationalist, but by an officious Wkipedian who declared that he didn't like comments and would delete any that he found anywhere. What can you do in a case like that but let the goddam article stew in its own nationalist juices? It almost sometimes makes me want to doubt the worldly sophistication that makes Europeans so far superior to my American narrow-minded chauvinistic exceptionalist countrymen. End rant. Good luck, anyway. Dandrake 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

From main article history:
09:26, 22 December 2005 Szopen (Footnote and Polish-German. Would that be ok?)

Let's see what happens. I believe I am not alone in coming to this article and talk page to be disappointed by all the time and effort that has been spent arguing about Copernicus' nationality. I also believe if there is no consensus over how his nationality is stated, no attempt to state it should be made. I am neither Polish nor German. David Kernow 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not going to be the only encyclopedia in the world calling him Polish - German. Space Cadet 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's exactly what Wikipedia could do; what other encyclopedia in the world is like Wikipedia?  Note that it's "Polish-German" plus footnote.
So far as I am aware, Wikipedia is run on admin-moderated consensus; as the long arguments from this talk page and the existence of the Copernicus' nationality article indicate, a consensus has not been reached as regards Copernicus' nationality. Might there then at least be a consensus on how to handle this lack of consensus?  For instance, would you be willing to accept no explicit mention of nationality in the article?
Thanks, David Kernow 22:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
No, thank you. Space Cadet 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. Well, at least there is still the footnote for those upset by Copernicus being described as Polish. So, again, let's see what happens. David Kernow 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
OK! Thanks. Space Cadet 23:29, 22 December

2005 (UTC)

The following sentence, which one can find now in the article about Copernicus, is - in the light of INTERNATIONAL Copernicus scholarship - definetely wrong: "Although there is some dispute, Copernicus is generally considered to be Polish." There are at least as many scholars who consider Copernicus a German than those who consider him a Pole. I think the article should reflect that fact; the Copernicus entry shouldn´t present only the Polish point of view.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus/Nationality/Archive_3&oldid=63045287"