Jump to content

Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 154: Line 154:
== Commentariolus originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page Outline ==
== Commentariolus originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page Outline ==


The article [[Commentariolus]] states it originally contained Copernicus' '''7 Postulates''' in its 40-page outline. This should be included in this article. - Galileo Galilei [[Special:Contributions/50.153.107.15|50.153.107.15]] ([[User talk:50.153.107.15|talk]]) 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The article [[Commentariolus]] states it originally contained Copernicus' '''7 Postulates''' in its 40-page outline. This should be included in this article as well as listing the 7 Postulates. - Galileo Galilei [[Special:Contributions/50.153.107.15|50.153.107.15]] ([[User talk:50.153.107.15|talk]]) 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:40, 21 June 2015

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeNicolaus Copernicus was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

German?

Per List of German inventions, should Copernicus be regarded as "German"? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources rather than opinions of some IP: Copernicus "German astronomer" brings up hits which are talking about Copernicus' influence on Kepler or his relations with Rheticus (German astronomers). Copernicus "Polish astronomer" has sources which are actually referring to Copernicus. Or here is Britannica.Volunteer Marek 06:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was of course no Germany at the time, but it is disputed whether Copernicus was ethnically and culturally German or Polish. TFD (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Still, need sources.Volunteer Marek 07:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, there was no Germany in Kepler's time either but there's a ton of sources which happily and rightly describe him as a "German astronomer".Volunteer Marek 07:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His family background is mentioned in the article and is sourced. TFD (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.Volunteer Marek 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Copernicus was born in Royal Prussia, which was just a decade before his birth still part of the State of the Teutonic Order, and there is evidence he spoke and wrote German and had strong German ties (as joining he German natio in Bologna) you can imho safely put him into the "German" category. As Royal Prussia acknowledged the Polish king as souvereign and in the decades to come became incorporated into Poland (until the partition some 300 years later) and he lived and studied in Cracow you can also put him into the Polish category. He was a citizen of Prussia during this time of transition from a German dominated state into a Polish province (just as the rest of the Teutonic order during his lifetime), and so I think you can use both, either or no classification (calling him just Prussian). His parents or family might have German roots, but his descendants (if there had been any) certainly would have become Polish. ASchudak (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before (particularly the "German natio" in Bologna - see the section on "Languages"). Again, at the end of the day you need sources which call him a "German astronomer" or ones which call him a "Polish astronomer". There really aren't any for the former, at least not ones dating to after WWI. There's plenty for the latter. There are also very few which refer to him as "Polish-German Astronomer" [1].
I actually don't care if his nationality is mentioned in the lede or not. The part that annoys me is that some users abuse this "no nationality in the lede" dictum to remove any mention of his association with Poland (like the fact that he led Polish troops in battle, that he was a finance minister to the Polish king, etc.). That right there is sacrificing the encyclopedianess of the article and inclusion of useful information on the altar of nationalistic intransigence.Volunteer Marek 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say he was a "Polish astronomer" then we should say so. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with ArtifexMayhem, Copernicus should be mentioned as "Polish astronomer". --Yemote (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And could you change the Schweidnitz (Świdnica). Swidnica was under Piast (Polish royal family) rule up to 1380 and after that long in Bohemia (a Slavic rule) the name was originally and long after Copernicus Świdnica. Watzenrodes (Copernicus' mather) family moved from there somewhat around 1380 into mainland of Polish Kingdom. It is unknown how many generation they were in Świdnica, however we know they were in close relation to Polish Royal interests and Polish families merchants a noble already there. --Yemote (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Copernicus is a German astronom. NightoverBratland (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography he was a "Polish doctor and astronomer" - could someone add it to the list of sources referring to Copernicus as Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide complete bibliographical details of The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography (where published, name of publisher, year of publication) and the page numbers of the "Copernicus" entry? Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was never German. This is the same claim as for Nikola Tesla, being an American or even German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.244.186 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that somebody claims Tesla as an American is proof for exactly what regarding Copernicus? 8 years of debate here, spread over half a dozen archive pages, reflecting on some 290 years of historical debates, and finally we have the argument that concludes its all. Please read the archive and if you have something NEW to add you will find an audience here.ASchudak (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans will never accept the truth. Copernicus's REAL surname was "Kopernik". This surname still funcions in Poland, while you won't find a surname "Koppernigk" nowhere except that fake German Copernicus case. Was he the only one in the world with the Koppernigk" surname? No, because his real last name obviously was "Kopernik". 80% of Copernicus's family was of Polish ethnicity. He chose to make carreer in Germany and made many of his works in Latin and German because back in the day Poland gave him no perspective of education, not even a chance to be known as a scientist. That doesn't change the fact that his original name was "Mikolaj Kopernik" and that he was of predominantly Polish descent. In Germany they still say that he was German and had no connection to Poland. On the German version of the article, there's no sign of his real name! It's scandalous. I observe that notable people of Polish descent who made something great or who achieved something more than living in a "Polish ghetto", are frequently denied to be Polish, while some infamous persons like Richard Kuklinski are always loudly described as Polish. The Germans also claim that Bukowski is not a Polish surname. If Copernicus was a prominent criminal, Germans would then happily say that he was surely Polish, not German at all. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Copernican Telescope

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article that all of Copernicus' astronomical observations were done without the benefit of a telescope - it hadn't been invented yet. 2607:F0B0:D:4C38:6091:AD92:290C:9D1 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, 2607, but a statement of the obvious. Copernicus made very few observations, as he said. Some of these involved big errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.252.194 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"obvious"? to who? would you expect that only professional astronomers and telescope makers will read this Wikipedia article?...try this - ask a random sample of, say, a few hundred people when the telescope was invented then get back to us with the numbers of correct, or near-correct, answers... tip to save you a little time and effort: the number will be a close approximation to zero... similar result if you were to ask them to describe Copernicus' observational techniques... in truth, you'd likely have trouble just finding people who had any idea at all who Copernicus was, or why we remember him... 2607:F0B0:9:A005:6091:AD92:290C:9D1 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Wouldn't hurt to mention that Copernicus had no telescope, and what his observational techniques consisted in. Nihil novi (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like Copernicus conducted astronomical observations in 1513–16 presumably from his external curia; and in 1522–43, from an unidentified "small tower" (turricula), using primitive instruments modeled on ancient ones—the quadrant, triquetrum, armillary sphere. At Frombork Copernicus conducted over half of his more than 60 registered astronomical observations perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds very good, especially if references are provided for these facts! Nihil novi (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its a quote from the article :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion

I found the article informative. One thing to be careful about is giving undue weight to a minority position (unfortunately a common occurrence in journalism). In the segment on nationality, if most sources ascribe Copernicus a Pole then dissenting statements should not lead nor take up the majority of its space. It's a very good article overall. Thanks. Lafanciulla (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus was also a Catholic priest. He became a canon of the cathedral chapter of Frombork through his uncle, and he served the church of Warmia as a medical advisor.117.213.7.93 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[1][reply]

Current scholarly opinion seems to be that Copernicus was never ordained, and was therefore not a priest. There is no doubt about his being a canon, but that office did not require him to be a priest. The claim that he was has been raised and rebutted several times before on this talk page, most recently here.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name

"The surname likely had something to do with the local Silesian copper-mining industry,[27] though some scholars assert that it may have been inspired by the dill plant (in Polish, "koperek" or "kopernik") that grows wild in Silesia.[34]"

The reference [27] for assertion that Kopernik's name had something to do with the copper mining industry, is not a linguistic dissertation of scientific value, but a journalistic relation by Stefan Melkowski of a discussion panel held at Mikołaj Kopernik University in Toruń, on a subject of ethnic and national affiliations of Copernicus. The passage linking the name Kopernik to the copper industry correctly points out the common Slavic or Polish suffix of the name “-nik”, denoting an agent noun, like in beatnik, or sputnik, proving the name is Slavic: Polish, or Silesian in origin. However statement that adding the suffix to the root “kopr” denotes a person dealing with copper artifacts, may well be a joke, appropriate for such an article. “Kopr” is Czech for “dill”, as is “koper” in Polish. Similarity of the medieval spelling of the name Kopernik (with double “p”) with “copper” does not prove the name has originated from the copper metal. English has not been spoken in medieval Silesia and Poland. The Polish for copper is “miedź”, while in Czech it is “měď”. The German name for copper is “Kupfer”, with variations like “kuper”, “kupfar”, “kuffar”, “kupar”, “kuppar”, not quite similar to Kopernik . The German Kupfer originates from Latin cuprum, and is a term unlikely used by the early medieval Silingi, the supposedly Germanic tribe that inhabited Silesia in antiquity. The Gothic (East Germanic early medieval language) name for copper alloys may have been “aiz”. While German settlers started to arrive in Poland, including Silesia, since the thirteenth century, along with founding new and existing towns on the Magdeburg Law by the Polish Piast princes, the Silesian village Kopernik, or Koperniki, near the town of Nysa, Neisse in German, the likely source of Kopernik family name, according to the Nuremberg Chronicle has still been inhabited by a Polish population at the time of issue of the Chronicle in 1493, when Nicolaus Copernicus was 20 years old. It states about the countryside surrounding Nysa: “plebs rustica polonici ydeomatis...” In approximate translation:“Polish plebeian villagers all around (Nysa)”. Today, according to a Polish ancestry webpage Moikrewni.pl, there are 130 persons living in Poland, bearing the last name Kopernik. Its German counterpart, Verwandt.de reports 22 phone book entries with that name. The name spelled Koppernigk is absent there. The Polish Moikrewni.pl webpage also reports numerous similar names, like Kopernok (mostly in Silesia), Kopernicki, etc. As far as the meaning of the Kopernik village name, it could have been derived from the name for dill, or one could also speculate that it has something to do with the Silesian dialect verb „kopyrtnąć”, “kopertnąć”, meaning to jump, to go fetch something, to fall down, to trip, to die suddenly, possibly from no longer used “kopyra” or “kopera”, meaning a hare, and similar to also archaic Polish expression :”sunąć w koperczaki” – to move in a lively, dance like fashion, meaning “to pay court to a lady”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc966 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

There should be a discussion of the errors in the observations made by Copernicus. One of his observations involved an error of about 2 degrees of arc. This is big for the unaided eye. One of his observations of Mars was in error by about 2 degrees. This is about 120 times the reasonable minimum for those made with the unaided eye, which is about 1 minute of arc.

See Tycho Brahe, where there is a discussion of Tycho's errors, made with the unaided eye.
See Tycho_Brahe#Tycho's_observational_astronomy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.4.151.141 (talkcontribs)
Copernicus made only a few observations, a dozen or two, and it would take very little time to study them.

Influences

ClueBot decided that this edit by @White373737:, which added Martianus Capella to the infobox as an influence, was possible vandalism. I don't get it. Sure, I don't know the topic but it appears, on the face of it, to be at least just a good faith edit even if it is wrong. Or is there some horrendous history here which means that the insertion is indeed disruptive? For now, I am AGFing and restoring it. Please feel free to put me right on this ... thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just reacting to the string “anus“. (I’ve noticed a couple of false positives from it lately.)—Odysseus1479 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey - I hadn't even thought of that! Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure that it's a false positive, and I reported it as such not long after the reversion was done. I didn't re-revert, however, because I don't believe that Capella's influence was sufficient to warrant his being listed in the infobox. The same applies even more so to Aristarchus, who's also there. To justify listing these ancient writers as "influences", we really need some good secondary sources to tell us that Copernicus got rather more from them than what he records in De revolutionibus or its draft.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and thanks very much. Please feel free to remove it - now it's decoupled from the vandalism false positive I've no personal commitment to it. I just didn't want the new editor's contribution lost in that way ... but if it's merely wrong, not evil, please carry on! I'm absolutely not qualified to go in to bat for either side here. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better image

Hi, May I suggest to use File:Nicolaus Copernicus. Reproduction of line engraving.jpg, which is a much better image. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of aesthetic judgement I guess. The present one is sort of a classic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commentariolus originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page Outline

The article Commentariolus states it originally contained Copernicus' 7 Postulates in its 40-page outline. This should be included in this article as well as listing the 7 Postulates. - Galileo Galilei 50.153.107.15 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]