Talk:Lucas Watzenrode the Elder

Untitled
Ok -- WHAT THE HECK is this doing here? This has got to be one of the best -- an article about someone famous's non-famous grandfather. Will it ever end? JHK
 * If I weren't half-asleep, I'd delete the thing. I'll think about this when I return (probably Tuesday) if nobody has dealt with it before then. Vicki Rosenzweig

My vote is to delete -- asking for others, waiting till Tuesday, April 2.JHK

Well, "Wiki is not paper" and it is unlikely to cause a ambiguity problem...but is it useful knowledge? --rmhermen


 * rmh, the ONLY reason the 'wiki is not paper' excuse would work is if we wanted to become a mirror site for the Latter Day Saints genealogies of everyone who ever existed, which seems to be HJ's intent. I know the Frank Tipler Physics of Immortality argument that we'll eventually all be backed up on disk, but there's no reason wikipedia has to contain an entry for every named individual documented to have lived in the region of Elblag. This is the otherwise utterly unimportant ancestor of an important astronomer, and that's it. MichaelTinkler
 * I don't see any reason for it to be saved either but would it be useful for someone say looking for the political connections of Copernicus? --rmhermen

I vote to keep Copernicus's grandfather, unless server space becomes an issue. It's really mental clutter that I'm worried about. Now, my own grandfather or great-grandfather might not be important -- compared to Copernicus (see Copernican Revolution, an article which if it doesn't exist, should) -- but the immediate ancestry of famous people is often of interest. It sheds light on the character or circumstances of the famous person. User:Ed Poor
 * Yes, Ed - we call that a "supporting paragraph" inside the entry. Notice that the current entry gives the man's street address (Seglergasse). Why?  Because HJ happened to find that in a source?  Does that make it important?  No, it does not. Nupedia proposed the format of a short entry and a long entry, in which case this kind of material would NOT appear in the short entry, but might (and I stress might, Ed) belong in the long entry. MichaelTinkler


 * Still, as long as it does provide true information, according to Wikipedia is not a paper policy it can be kept. This is exactly what i've read: that if you want to put entry about your own small town, you can, because there is no limitation on paper... szopen


 * I suppose it depends on whether you care about general integrity -- wikipedia isn't paper, but it is supposed to be an excyclopedia. As such, any town, as a political and geographical entity, would have a place.  That isn't true in the case of people, though.  Generally, one has to have contributed something for a place in an encyclopedia -- otherwise, one can go to a vanity press job like Who's Who.  In this case, we're talking about someone whose main contribution to the human experience is one of sperm.  IMO, if he can't be shown to have been more than a sperm donor, he doesn't exist.
 * Why do I think this? Because I am a perfeshnul ejimacator -- one of the chief problems in education today is an inability for students to think critically and weigh comparative importance of things.  If articles don't help to reflect these differences, then there is a very good chance that Watzenrode will be given an equal status in the reader's eye as his grandson, the VERY important Copernicus.  The fact that this article was written by someone who also does not understand comparative importance is the ONLY reason the article is here at all -- remember, please, that the same person felt that the time Aeneas Silvius spent as an Imperial clerk was more important than the fact that the man became POPE!!JHK

Removed all discussion of Lucas Watzenrode the Younger, Bp. of Ermland, because it was cribbed, badly re-written and, most importantly, did not belong in an article on Lucas Watzenrode the Elder.JHK

I agree with JHK - I vote to delete. Famous people's relatives who have no significance other than relationship do not warrant a page of their own. I also agree with MichaelTinkler's comment above - if the information didn't warrant a mention or even a link in the Nicolaus Copernicus page, then it doesn't deserve a page of its own. Sure we are interested in his background, in what contributed to forming his character, but the date of his father's marriage and the names of all his rellies? This is really too trivial!!! Graham Chapman

Hey, having just read all of the controversy about this article, I'm dying to read it! Only it's gone away... :(

Wiki is not paper! No, really, it isn't! Ah, come on, I'd be interested in reading about this chap, and that seems to me a good enough reason to have an article on him. :) -- Oliver P. 19:15 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

The other Watzenrode
Lucas Watzenrode was indeed an important person in Polish history. But it wasn’t Copernicus’ grandpa, but uncle. More than half of the article is about him already (this article even links to the other Watzenrode in Polish Wiki). Moreover, the information about him here is false and POV, and evidently written in a manner that would help the creator proving Copernicus nationality in favour of German:

Copernicus had an uncle, his mother's brother, also named Lucas Watzenrode, who as bishop of Ermeland strongly supported the independence of Ermeland and helped raise Nicolaus and his brother after their father's death.

''Copernicus' uncle Lucas Watzenrode followed as bishop of Ermland, when the bishop Nicolaus Tungen died in 1489. Bishops were also secular rulers of the land. Lucas Watzenrode had been elected, but Casimir IV, king of Poland etc. did not wish him to be bishop. Casimir IV wanted his son Friedrich to become bishop, to invalidate the Teutonic Knights government and to be able to force Prussia to unite with Poland. Watzenrode however was ordained by the pope as bishop and ruler of Ermland, a part of Prussia, but then an excempt bishopric. The Prussian nobility, Teutonic Knights and a section of the Polish clergy supported him. Polish king Casimir IV did continue with conquest attempts and in 1492 he planned to remove Watzenrode by military force. His death foiled this plan. Watzenrode now was able to have a cordial neighborly working relationship with the sons of Casimir IV, Jan I Olbracht, then Aleksander Jagiellończyk, then Zygmunt I Stary. At times he was adviser to them. He had a good working relationship with the Teutonic Knights, but when necessary, upheld the independend status of Ermeland.''

Watzenrode strongly supported incorporation of Warmia into Poland. He was even chosen a bishop as a person who would be seen kindly by Polish king, because his father supported Poland during Thirteen Years' War against Teutonic Order. It even says that he payed for Copernicus' studies. I wonder which one (Jagiellon University?), because those in Italy were payed by Polish king. I suggest rewriting the article so that it would be about bishop Lucas Watzenrode born 1447 and NPOVing the information.--SylwiaS | talk 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Elder and the Younger
I hope there will be no confusion anymore with these two personaleties who shared the same name.--Dagox 09:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How about titling the article about the Younger simply Lucas Watzenrode, and this page Lucas Watzenrode (disambiguation)? I think it would make things much easier, esp that Lucas Watzenrode was an important man and there are many articles about him in encyclopedias, while Lucas Watzenrode the Older is nothing more but a grandpa of Copernicus.--SylwiaS | talk 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Canon?
Someone categorized Lucas Watzenrode the Elder, a merchant, as a "canon of Warmia" and "canon of Włocławek." Could this be a confusion of the father with the churchman son of the same name, Lucas Watzenrode?

I have deleted the two "canon" categories for Lucas Watzenrode the Elder. If I am mistaken, please reinstate them. Nihil novi (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)