Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus Monument, Toruń

A fact from Nicolaus Copernicus Monument, Toruń appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Nicolaus Copernicus Monument erected in 1853 at Thorn in Prussia, his native place, bears a Latin inscription drawn up by Alexander von Humboldt?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/November.

Wikipedia

Edits by user Matthead

I'm under the impression that the latest edits by user Matthead are solely to suggest Copernicus' nationality. Article has lost its neutral tone.--Jacurek (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this[[1]] :) anon account rushing in support of Matthead today.--Jacurek (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, maybe this sentence tipped you off: The city, built in Prussia by the Teutonic Order, for some time part of Royal Prussia, was part of East Prussia in the Kingdom of Prussia. ey? I think a more neutral version would be the city, at the time of the astronomer's birth in the Kingdom of Poland, was annexed by Kingdom of Prussia during the Second Polish Partition and returned to Poland after World War II (although that's only 3 "Polands" as opposed to 4 "Prussias"+1 Teutonic Order in the other version). I mean, if we have to insert this city history stuff in every article where it's barely relevant - these attempts at making proxy wars are really tiring.radek (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At one point this "hijacked" article has to be improved or just restored to the original version to meet neutrality requirements.--Jacurek (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Nihil novi (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Shall I edit it accordingly or simply revert it?Varsovian (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed.radek (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek, haven't you gotten used to the mysterious anons popping out of nowhere, supporting Matthead, and then vanishing without a trace? Tymek (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Is it too much to ask for a source from later than the 19th century? The only one here so far is for the "monument that was not built".radek (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Napoleon visited a city in the Duchy of Warsaw and the paragraph in question concerns the Polish Stanislaw Staszic so the spirit of Gdansk vote would suggest using Torun. Of course you can "cite it" to a German language work which will use "Thorn" but that doesn't really settle anything, does it?radek (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Nihil novi (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...This article shouldn't be a place to try and re-fight the Gdansk vote and as such the "background" section is unnecessary and basically its only point is to try and "prove" that "Thorn was a German town!". Why start again?radek (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Nihil novi (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Most people are not going to know who Staszic was, though he was notable, so a bit of background on him is necessary. There are other sections (see above) that you can shorten.radek (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Nihil novi (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the History section (see edit summary) per my comments above and per Nn's agreement. Also, please note that Nicolaus_Copernicus_Monument_in_Warsaw doesn't feel the need to go into a detail as to that *town's* history. No reason for it here either.radek (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead don't be disruptive

and don't purposely mischaracterize my edit summaries and reasoning. You said: " per Radek: removing "Staszic-Napoleon-Warsaw-Frederick Augustus-Thorvaldsen" section per UNDUE)".

What's pretty obvious is that is what is UNDUE is a history of the city of Torun complete with the usual "Thorn is a German town!" stuff (just as if it had "Torun was a Polish town"! section).

What is NOT UNDUE is information on previous plans to build a monument - hence Staszic and Napoleon very much belong in there, even if Staszic happened to be Polish. Please don't engage in these kinds of "retaliatory" edits.

And how about using the talk page some, ey?radek (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, 14 years

Torun was part of Poland until 1793, when, as part of the 2nd Partition of Poland it was annexed by Kingdom of Prussia. Duchy of Warsaw was created in 1807. But apparently somehow during those 14 years, the city became such an integral part of German Prussia that the fact that the city was part of Duchy of Warsaw constitutes "an occupation". Right. Removing irredentist nationalist POVing.radek (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]