Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality/Archive 4

A modest proposal
I invite everyone who cares about the actual subject of Copernicus to join in a simple policy: immediately revert any change that involves claims about his nationality, if the change hasn't already been discussed on the Talk page. (An alternate policy would be to avoid this Godforsaken page entirely, but I found that too hard to do, in light of the importance of the subject.) No reasonableness test; no careful rebuttals; no remonstrances; just kill it. Suggestions for change in the accepted text about his nationality will be considered here, and might even turn out to be desirable, and at the worst will show the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated when reason is let free to combat it. Dandrake 06:10, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really care about the nationality issue at all (Germany was far from being anything resembling a coherent state until 1871 and Poland was split so many times that you might as well stop counting), but the current situation, where the article Copernicus' nationality is effectively an orphan and the issue is ignored in the main article, is unsatisfactory. At least have a sentence linking to it in the intro. FWIW, I'd like to see a single credible historian who refers to this as an issue of nationality. It is very telling that the article on the matter does not include a bibliography. Europe at this time was still deeply rooted in feudalism, and nobody on either side of this debate -- neither the Poles nor the Germans -- would have liked to live under the conditions of total dependency that this implied, so I find the whole debate somewhat amusing.--Eloquence*


 * Eloquence, Poland was partitioned twice: First, there were three partitions in the end of XVIII century and this lasted 120+ years, second in 1939 and this lasted 6 years. You haven't got problems with counting, aren't you? Szopen 06:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even if you count the time of Fragmentation between the rulerships of Boleslaus the Wrymouthed and Ladislaus the Elbow High, it's still less than five. What are you smoking, Eloquence? It must be pretty good. Space Cadet 14:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Aside from the Great Partitions in the 18th century, there were constant wars over territorial control from and to the West and East and long periods of foreign occupation. The nation state of Poland did not develop any coherence (as in independence and stable borders) until 1918, and even then it was soon to be taken under foreign control again. To speak of a single Polish or German nation in the context of the year 1500 is highly anachronistic. --Eloquence*


 * Eloquence, again, what?!? Poland had VERY stable western border from end XV century to half of XVIII century. if bordr does not change for more than centuries, then it is not stable? Also, are you claim that Poland was not independent in say 1600 or that Poles were unaware of their nationhood? Or maybe you ascribe to that absurd theory that "nations" did not exist before XIX century? Szopen 07:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * When I read books by Polish authors from 15th and 16th I find mentions about Polish nation all the time. Can you explain it? :-) Yeti 10:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

If I may barge back in: I've been reverting the article to the state that seems to represent a consensus reached in earlier disputes. If there was a consenus on some different wording, I'll back off in a flash.


 * Yes, I think that nations, as a philosophical concept, as a social entity, in a stable and coherent form are indeed a product of the 18th and 19th century. However, you are mistaken if you believe that I want to get into this whole messy debate. My main points were this: 1) The nationality article should be linked from the actual page, 2) This issue is hugely overblown and emotionalized. Point 1) seems to be disputed by nobody and point 2) seems to be proven beyond all reasonable doubts by this thread. As for the rest, I'll leave this to you to fight over since you seem to care about these matters a lot.--Eloquence*


 * Let's says that we are in disagreement over appearance of nations. Nations, as concept of separate ethnic cultures with separate languages and with need to have their own states, appear earlier than in XVIII century: unless you want me to ignore ALL Polish medieval and later sources. This was different concept of nationalism, of course, so NC probably thought about himeslf as about Prussian, Pole and German in the same time; Szopen 12:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * May I assume (and this is not a sarcastic figure of speech) that the position of this, implying a reply to my comment, is an oversight in editing? I don't know how I could make it clearer that I don't give a very small damn about the nationality question, except to keep it from interfering with an article about an imporant person and his work. I have pushed the 3-revert limit in the hope of reducing the provocation for some advocate of the German side (certainly not Eloquence) to escalate the battle to the old levels; the process has shown me that my modest proposal did not get a consensus. I agree, though, on not wanting to get into the debate. I don't even want to see the debate. If this article came up on VFD, I'm not sure I wouldn't vote in favor, just to keep the natioalist bullshit battles restricted to subjects I don't care about. Dandrake 22:54, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * It was not intended as a reply to you, Dan.--Eloquence*

The nationality article was split off (I presume -- this was a bit before my time) to move those disputes out of here so that, at the least, one could edit the significant stuff about NC without getting one's edits caught up in a nationalist pissing contest. (Not to say at all that this discussion is one of those; if you want to see one, check the archives, either of this page or of the article itself.) My idea is to zap any changes made without discussion here, regardless of which side they're on, to keep the level of provocation down in the article itself and stop escalation.

That said, I'm shocked to see that there isn't even a pointer to the nationality page. IMHO this is dumb and contrary to the whole idea. Maybe we can agree that the NC article needs a pointer to Dandrake 22:43, May 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup Szopen 12:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I did ;-). Przepla 19:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Awkward
It's rather awkward that Poles seems to be claiming the German astronomer Copernicus as a "Pole". He was born to an ethnic German family in a predominantly German-speaking Hanse city in Prussia, he spoke German as his native language. The fact that the city was under Polish suzerainty is irrelevant. Using such a logic, it did not exist Poles at all between 1793 and 1918, as there was no state called Poland. There were only Prussians/Germans, Austrians and Russians!

If Copernicus had lived in 1945, he had been brutally expulsed/ethnically cleansing or murdered with his entire family by the Poles. Undoubtly, he would then be living in West Germany and be a supporter of the expellee party, and would almost certainly not consider himself "Polish".


 * I would say the other way: until XIX century Copernicus was commonly refered as Polish astronomer and nobody had doubted it. Definetely, If you would ask Copernicus who is he, he would answer Prussian, but Prussian for him meant something else than for you: the term in his times included German-speaking burghers from Gdansk and Polish-speaking nobles. Then he would describe himself as both Pole and German, i would say.
 * As for you insinuation about expulsion, well, it wasn't mostly done by Poles, and despite what explees try to suggest it was MOSTLY done in much more civilised ways than expellings done earlier in war by Germans.
 * Second, nationality in XIX century was something different than in XV century. You are trying to apply your logic to XV century, when people national conscience was much more fluid and when it was based very often not only on language/family ties but often on political loyalty. YSecond, he was born in Prussia - province of POland (though authonomous) which means nothing for discussion. He spoke German, but he may as well speak Polish, he clearly recorder Polish names with proper spelling. The city elites were predominantly German-speaking, as for lower classes we don't know anything about it in XV century (the documents are from later parts) and it is irrevelant, since many German-speaking persons were Polish patriors (should I mention for example Dantyszek?)
 * Anyway, see Copernicus' nationality and discuss there and present arguments. Szopen 17:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polish wikipedia has it written that his contemporaries, with whom he writed, described him as Polish astronomer. Anything more about this? Szopen 18:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming issue
I am too tired to enforce the naming in article to be consistent with voting results from Gdansk\Vote. It seems, that the consensus is (though I don't like it, and even I strongly dislike it ) to use Thorn (Torun) and then Thorn (the rules for 1466 and after period apply). But them Frauenberg or Frombork? In this case, i doubt that anyway would say that Frauenberg is English name ... mm anyway someone could check it and then probably protect the page.

As for German-Polish astronomer, maybe we should return to neutral "astronomer" but leave him of course in category Polish astronomers, and maybe add him to German astronomers.

NOTE that there is already article about dispute over his nationality and there is no need to repeat it here, or on talk pages. Szopen 17:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, So it would be thorn (torun), breslau (wroclaw) - this cases are clear with new policy (though I dislike it). However cases like Olsztyn/Allenstein and Frombork/Frauenberg are clearly different. First, I doubt that Allenstein is nearly as popular as Thorn, or that it made it to English as "official" name, therefore is there need to change the name here?Szopen 15:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

83. etc anonymous user, please stop it. Your changes have only one goal: to impress the reader with info that Copernicus was NOT POlish astronomer. most of them are excellent examples of classical propaganda (technic named "omission"), eg stubborness in adding that Copernicus belonged to "German" natio in Bologne: which adds nothing to article, because at the time ALL POLISH STUDENTS BELONGED TO GERMAN NATIO, since NATIO was not declaration of ethnicty, but f* student corporation for God's sake! Polish NATIO in Bologne was created YEARS later! Similarly why removing That Cracow was Capitol of Poland and instead isnerting irrevelant info that it was Hanse city. etc, etc. You CAN discuss it at Copernicus' nationality page or at least try to justify your edits here!!!! Szopen 15:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, why reverting info that Royal Prussia was in Poland? Well, it was. It was autonomous province of Poland. Szopen 07:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nationality
Something for German users...

Man hat mich gelehrt, die Herkunft meines Blutes und Namens auf polnische Edelleute zurückzuführen, welche Niëtzky hießen und etwa vor hundert Jahren ihre Heimat und ihren Adel aufgaben, unerträglichen religiösen Bedrückungen endlich weichend: es waren nämlich Protestanten. Ich will nicht leugnen, daß ich als Knabe keinen geringen Stolz auf diese meine polnische Abkunft hatte: was von deutschem Blute in mir ist, rührt einzig von meiner Mutter, aus der Familie Oehler, und von der Mutter meines Vaters, aus der Familie Krause, her, und es wollte mir scheinen, als sei ich in allem Wesentlichen trotzdem Pole geblieben. Daß mein Äußeres bis jetzt den polnischen Typus trägt, ist mir oft genug bestätigt worden; im Auslande, wie in der Schweiz und in Italien, hat man mich oft als Polen angeredet; in Sorrent, wo ich einen Winter verweilte, hieß ich bei der Bevölkerung il Polacco; und namentlich bei einem Sommeraufenthalt in Marienbad wurde ich mehrmals in auffallender Weise an meine polnische Natur erinnert: Polen kamen auf mich zu, mich polnisch begrüßend und mit einem ihrer Bekannten verwechselnd, und Einer, vor dem ich alles Polenthum ableugnete und welchem ich mich als Schweizer vorstellte, sah mich traurig längere Zeit an und sagte endlich “es ist noch die alte Rasse, aber das Herz hat sich Gott weiß wohin gewendet.” Ein kleines Heft Mazurken, welches ich als Knabe componirte, trug die Aufschrift “Unsrer Altvordern eingedenk!”—und ich war ihrer eingedenk, in mancherlei Urtheilen und Vorurtheilen. Die Polen galten mir als die begabtesten und ritterlichsten unter den slavischen Völkern; und die Begabung der Slaven schien mir höher als die der Deutschen, ja ich meinte wohl, die Deutschen seien erst durch eine starke Mischung mit slavischem Blute in die Reihe der begabten Nationen eingerückt. Es that mir wohl, an das Recht des polnischen Edelmanns zu denken, mit seinem einfachen Veto den Beschluß einer Versammlung umzuwerfen; und der Pole Copernikus schien mir von diesem Rechte gegen den Beschluß und den Augenschein aller andern Menschen eben nur den größten und würdigsten Gebrauch gemacht zu haben. Friedrich Nietzsche

One thing to bear: while I am Pole and I do think COpernicus is a Pole too, and while most of dictionaries, encyclopedias etc agreed that Copernicus was a Pole, this does not mean he couldn't be seen as in some sense German too. Anyway, that's not the point; Wikipedia does not record the "Truth". It records knowledge. If there is dispute about Copernicus nationality and if there is disagreement between wikipedians over it, then wikipedia records it. Period. Szopen 17:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the great discussions about the nationality of Nikolaus Kopernikus: I had a lot of fun reading this! I think that most of the Polish authors here are not good particularly in history, that’s why they brought up the whole nation- thing. In this period of history the nationality of a person living in this part of Europe was always uneasy to define.
 * Maybe names will help, but I learned here, that "Barbara", and "Watzenrode" are typical for polish names. Maybe we all are Poles no matter what name we have or what language we use? Or could it be that Nikolaus was half German? I'm sure that some guys here will some day find out, that Jesus was Polish to. (I will check that when I’m finished here ;-))
 * But what a inferiority-complex you must have to ignore the historical facts and to call him 100% Polish? We all join now the same European Union, and I hope that some day you will see that persons like him are the link between our nations, and not the battle ground for nationalism. Till that day you can have him as a 100% Polish guy, cause if you think that somebody here in Germany is interested in his nationality you are completely wrong. You can see this by the discussion in this forum, cause there isn’t a single extreme opinion from Germany posted. When you think that the writing of the name, that I used, is just a statement like that you are wrong to, cause this is how we write him here. (like the Polish capitol called “Warschau” in Germany, not Warsaw or Warschawa)
 * But please do me a favour and don’t stop Don Quijotes, be brave and fight the mills, cause I want read more of this silly stuff!


 * By the way, I see that you are interested in Nietzsche: you can have him too!


 * Nietsche was not Polish, though he considered himself part Polish.
 * For the rest, your post, or any of earlier German users post are not extreme?! Wow! Second, you think that when I wrote that he was both Prussian, Polish and German it is "extreme"? Even more wow! Third, what historical facts? What facts? What can prove that Copernicus was not Polish? Nothing was posted from German side. That he signed to German nation in Italian university? Well, because ALL Polish students writen to German "natio" since "natio" was student corporation, not declaration of nationality. He wrote German letters? So, he knew German and wrote to German people, no wonder he write in German. What else? You consider it funny that he was considered Polish by EVERYONE until late XVII century?
 * For typical, German and POlish names, there are no such things. We share thousand years of common history and most of people probably have German-Polish ancestors. Many of my students have names like Schmidt (Written: Szmidt in Polish).

facts? ok: 1. Barbara Watzenrode is a German name, and the Watzenrode family came from lower saxony, that means he was half German 2. the upper class in Thorn was German cause Thorn was a Hanse- city founded by germen settlers (or call them invaders, I don't care), and he was born in that class 3. he never published anything in Polish language, only in German an Latin, and he never used the Polish language 4. Kopernik is a name that you can find in Germany today by some families: can you say that about the name Kopernik in Poland to? (I'm really intrested, so please try an answer)

Was that enought? I'm sure it isn't enought for you. Don't forget: my point is not to call him German, but I can't stand the interpretation that you have cause he isn't 100% Polish - this is simply a lie! Call him "Polish- German" or "nearly Polish" or something, but don't try to rewrite history. The day when we define him as a shared root will be the first day of a beginning friendship.


 * No, it's not enough. AFAIK He had not published anything in german, he wrote letters in German, to Germans,

ad 1) So what? You can find a lot of people callde Chopin in France and probably none in Poland, Yet, Fryderyk Chopin without doubts is Polish. You can find a lot of people called Rommel in German, yet gen. Rommel (by o with accent) was Polish (not Erwin Rommel, but this Polish Rommel who defended Warsaw). ad 2) Torun was found by Germans on the place of old Polish settlement, and it was by that time in Poland (in Polish province of Royal Prussia). ad 3) He wrote down Polish names of peasants and he did that quite well, which means that he probably knew Polish (well, he studied in Krakow for some time, and a lot of Poles lived in Royal Prussia, so it would be strange if he hadn't). ad 4) no idea. It wouldn't prove anything, since people called Kopernik now (which are probably of either Czech or German ancestry) have nothing to do with Kopernik in past.

If you would examine edit history, you would see that I was trying to force once version calling him POlish-German astronomer. I was reverted few times, so I gave up. I NEVER claimed he is 100% Polish. Heck, just look few lines aboev, when user H.J (she is out of wikipedia now) wrote a lot of misinformations (as about "German nation In Bologne accepted only German students (which is lie, since it was general natio for IIRC English, Poles, Hungarians and Germans" or there was no Poles in Danzig or Thorn (there were, of course, a lot of them: but usually in lower classes of people, in higher classes they indeed were so unusual that they were described by names as "Polonus" "Polack" etc.

And what I wrote, I think more than year before? Let me requote myself, well, you probably read it already since I assume you are discussing only after reading the discussion history.

"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." Szopen 08:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest with you: I wrote what I wrote in your section cause the headline was “nationality”. My concerns where about the whole conversation on this side witch was – in my opinion – very nationalistic. But I read the article first two weeks ago, and I don’t know about some nationalistic stuff from the German side, cause in the moment when I “arrived” nothing of that was left. So it turns out that not you where the goal for my polemic text. In fact, when you join me in my opinion I have to apologize for blaming you! I hope you accept that apology. (By the way: Have you insulted me with “AFAIK”? Please explain “AFAIK” to me, cause I have to educate myself with some foreign offences…) But to be honest again, I have some problems with the way Poles (and many of them are editing on Wiki) see our shared history. And even when I understand that there are some concerns about Germans from history – Germans did mostly wrong to the Poles – I cant understand how they see Germany today. For instance Frau Steinbach: nobody, except some Vertriebene, cares about what this women say here. But when I see what you make of it, I see a constant “Anti- Germanism” in that. And when I read some stuff about middle European history and related topics I can see that they are mainly touched by eastern Europeans, witch means, that they aren’t balanced to say it in a moderate way. And when you try to bring the other side of the coin, you can be sure that somebody will delete that. By the way: I was on your page at wiki, and I found the link to “How to deal with poles”. Is that a fun- side or is it serious? However, don’t get me wrong but so funny the text was, there was some truth in it… At the end I’m glad that some Pole is joining my opinion about Kopernikus, even when I would say that he is not Polish- German but German- Polish ;-)

AFAIK - means "as far as I know". "How to deal ..." is fun - side and according to encyclopedias worldwide, including German ones, Copernicus was a Polish astronomer. Space Cadet 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Entschluss Kraft Wassersuppe!

I wish we discover a little green on a distant planet 1 day and forget about diffrences between nations. I am Pole and live in England for a while now. Someone asked me 'where are you from ?' not so long ago. My reply was: ' from Earth'. Sorry for this comment off the subject, but I am so borred with people sticking nationality labels like it makes any difference to importance of achievments. I am sure Copernicus wouldn't really care if you call him German, Polish or Prussian.


 * That man is NO Prussian by any stretch of the imagination, you can tell from the portrait of him; black haired Prussians simply don't exist. If he is, by some strange twist of fate, a Prussian, then he is obviously very much mixed in with Poles.

Many nations claim some great scientists are "their". If Germans claim that Copernicus is German it only prooves that he was really great man. Yes - we have much common history, and Copernicus had some German connections like letters in German (and nothing written in Polish). But it is essential to say that in that time writing in Polish was really rare - Poles (and especially scientists) writed in Latin (lingua franca of that time, like someone said). And those letters were sent to Germans - no wonder he writed them in German if he could. Also astronomers and other scientists with who Copernicus contacted always term him as "Polish scientist". Plus Copernicus and his family were on the Polish side in the conflict with Teutonic Order (which was a German organisation). Printed encyclopedias (for example prestige Encyclopedia Britannica), as well as International Astronomical Union say Copernicus was Pole. Some of you say that there's no evidence that he talked Polish at home, well - there's no evidence he talk German at home too. So telling that Copernicus was German is simply lie. Maybe he is partly German, but many people can be considered partly [some_nationality], and you don't call them (for example) French/German, but you say only one nationality that seems more correct - in that case it's obvious Copernicus should be called Pole in Wikipedia (with no "partly German" adds). And just for your information - for the first time in my whole life I've met an opinion that Copernicus was a German. In Poland we have a well known phrase about Copernicus - "Wstrzymał Słońce, ruszył Ziemię, polskie wydało go plemię" (which means: "He stopped the Sun, he moved the Earth, he grow up in Poland"). And in the end - defending Copernicus' Polish nationality is not nationalism - it's taking care of the historical truth. Sadi 13:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (from Toruń/Poland)