Talk:Maria Cunitz

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BellaG 00, Arcel.Arc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alynbrwn, Flyrock.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

added sources

see edit summary for rest. A category for Silesians should be added.radek (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

the usual

Ok, anonymous IPs of various persuasions, how about including ALL the sources and info in the article - something like "Maria Cunitz or Maria Kunicka (etc. etc.) was a Polish-Silesian-German woman astronomer...". Of course "and due to her living as refugee in Poland for a few years now sometimes referred to as Polish Maria Kunicka" is nonsense OR and does not belong. Also not sure what "Literatur" is doing in an English wikipedia. And let's not start an edit war filling up any kind of "Literatur" or "References" or "Źródła" with refs in various languages to claim her as one thing or another. Also it should be "Eliasz Kreczmar" or "Eliasz Kreczmar von Loewen" if you'd like since "Kreczmar" was his name and "von Loewen" only came later when he got nobilitated. Also the whole thing about the Holy Roman Empire is here, as always, undue.radek (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Radeksz, you keep changing it to Polish- German. She was not Polish, she took refuge in Poland neighboring Silesia during the Thirty Years' War, that ended 1648. She went back to Pitschen in Silesia, HRE and died much later. The HRE is centainly NOT undue. YOU apparently keep adding noncense OR by calling her Polish(-Silesian-German).

About the ss or cz or sz in the names, this is oldfashioned old German way of spelling, but my keyboard does not have an esszet (sz) either and the discussion site only featured – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §. Therefore I usually type two ss like in Gross, when it should be an esszet (sz). Cz could also be in modern German tsch (as Kretschmer, Kretschmar, Kretschmayer)

Her husband's name was Elias Leonibus Loewen birth name (Kretschmer) Kretschmayer etc (71.137.192.11 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

---

How could she be a Polish woman astronomer?

She was born in Wohlau, part of the principality of Brieg-Liegnitz-Wohlau, part of Silesia, owned by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, where she lived till ~1615 Then she came to Schweidnitz, part of the principality of Schweidnitz-Jauer, part of Silesia, owned by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, where she lived till ~1630 Then she came to Pitschen, part of the principality of Brieg-Liegnitz-Wohlau....

Because of the Thirty Years' War she took refuge in Lubnice NOT Olobok. Here is one of her letters which she send from Lubnice to Hevelius in Danzig. http://www.olesnica.nienaltowski.net/Kunicka/Ksiazka/Cunitia_Hevelisz.jpg Now Lubnice is only one km or 1093 yards or 0.62 miles from the Silesian-Polish broder, she lived there only a few years and went back all times to Pitschen, if somethig important had happened She died in Pitschen. Nothing is known about a written text from her in Polish, her parents came from the Liegnitz area in Silesia.

She and her whole family had nothing to do with Poland.

Today most part of Silesia belonged to Poland - OK, but not during the 17th c. 84.175.236.200 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the reliable sources provided to back it up. Please don't remove references or referenced text from the article.radek (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't use wrong sources in wikipedia. Do you know the newest book concerning Maria Cunitz: Liwowsky, Einige Neuigkeiten zur Familie der Schlesierin Maria Cunitz, 2008. The author has worked on the family of Maria for many years. He could trace back her ancestors to 1543 and the descendants of her brother to ~1780. See pages 57-58. No Polish people anywhere! Come on - let's slove the little problem: Do you agree that the parents of Maria (Heinrich Cunitius and Maria von Scholz) were born in the Liegnitz area, and Liegnitz was not a part of Poland during the 16th c ? 84.175.191.160 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name version "Maria Kunicka"

Would anybody know what is the origin of the alternative name spelling "Maria Kunicka"? When/in what publication did it first appear?

Besides Wikipedia, I was able to find the name "Maria Kunicka" at several web pages, e.g.:

1. http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/czech/poles1.html,
2. http://buhlplanetarium2.tripod.com/bio/heveliuse/Stories_of_Women_Stargazers.pdf
3. http://www.szlakcysterski.org/?pokaz=obiekty_cysterskie&id=34&zmien_jezyk=en
4. http://www.fotw.net/flags/pl-ld-lu.html
5. http://astro-forum.org/Forum/index.php?showtopic=21443
6. http://www.secretcypher.myzen.co.uk/URBANIA_PAGE.htm

but they all seem to be recent web pages with no references. Hardly a reliable source for an encyclopedia article.

The Polish "Gazeta Wyborcza" (http://wyborcza.pl/1,75476,5850311,Maria__co_patrzyla_w_niebo.html) calls her "Cunitia (also known as Kunic)". The only "Kunicka" in the printed "Encyclopedia PWN" seems to be a singer.

Unless a reliable source for this name is found, I would suggest not to use "Kunicka" in the article head, but instead use her own name spelling, which is Cunitia.

Ephra29 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "alternative name" it's her actual name. The sources are included in the article. Please consult them first.radek (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One source: [1]. As the article already states there were several spelling versions of her name, including Kunic.radek (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek, thank you very much. I reviewed the sources given in the article. They do not include the name "Kunicka" that I can find. Therefore, the above does not give the source for "Kunicka" nor answers the question about the origin of this name. Ephra29 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see the problem. "Kunic" and "Kunicka" are pretty much equivalent in Slavic languages. One is like "Kunic" and the other like "Miss Kunic" but it's the same thing.radek (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To my understanding of the Polish language rules (old fashioned), a daughter of "Mr. Kunic" would be "Miss Kunicówna". His wife could be called "Mrs. Kunicowa". "Kunicka" seems to be a female version of the male name "Kunicki". The name "Kunicka" appears to be a recent invention of the astronomy enthusiasts in Poland. We shall not propagate their mistakes in English Wikipedia. Ephra29 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no or at least not necessarily (there's some weird exceptions in Polish grammar, but they don't apply here). Wife would be "Kunicówna" or "Kunicowa". The daughter (and if this was a son) would be diminutive - which would mean a "-ka" ending (or if it was a son a "-ek" ending - like my name, Rad-ek is the diminutive). So "Kunicka" is "daughter of Kunic". There's no propagation of any mistakes here.radek (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The ending -owa is used "to form last names of wives from the last names of their husbands when the names end with -a -o or any consonant. For the same purpose, the ending -ina or -yna can also be used, but it is less frequent. [...] The ending -ówna forms the names of daughters from the last names or titles of their fathers. For the same purpose, the ending "-anka" can also be used, but it is less frequent." Reference: Stanislaw Szober, "Gramatyka Jezyka Polskiego", 11th edition, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1969, page 121-122. (my translation from the Polish original). These rules have no connection to the grammatical diminutive in Polish. Ephra29 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

-ka is diminutive so it's a daughter. Remember that these people didn't live in 1969 by which time these practices became standardized. Anyway, I changed it to Kunic.radek (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Silesia or Lower Silesia?

Looking at the map referenced in the article ([2]]) Silesia is marked as one at the time of Maria's life. Why to keep changing Silesia to Lower Silesia then? Ephra29 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Silesia. Someone else is the one who wanted it changed to Lower Silesia.radek (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and btw, these old German maps that the anon keeps inserting into these articles are NOT proper references.radek (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh...

You can't source Wiki articles with other Wiki articles Matthead. And you've been around on Wikipedia long enough to know this. I'd appreciate a self revert here.radek (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

nationality section

Stan, you took out sourced info and replaced with an unsourced assertion. In the process you've misrepresented what the given refs where saying - they were sourcing Maria's nationality not the fact she was "accomplished". You also, in creating the new section, completely ignored all the sources which label her as Polish - so you didn't just restructure the article, create a new section and move stuff around, but also simply removed sourced info.

As to her signature - obviously she signed her name in Latin as did most scholars of the period. And of course that Latin name should be mentioned. But that doesn't make it her name.radek (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek: the references given in the article to support the alleged nationality(ies) do not establish a fact. Other references claim another nationality. The references given in the article do not look reputable and here is why. They appear to be a modern re-regurgitation of somebody else's content. To the extent that may make new claims on Maria's nationality or name, they do not state the basis of their assertions or the method. Therefore, the claims are not independently verifiable. As such, they are useless for anybody who would like to search for the truth using the scientific method. For example, how did the author of "History of Women in Science" establish Maria's nationality? The same with the reference "Stargazers: The Contribution of Amateurs to Astronomy Colloquium" -- it does not appear to establish anything on topics at hand, except that somebody said so in a speech during a relatively recent meeting in Paris. Also, if two printed sources give two different answers to the same question, then it does not mean that both answers are true and should be hyphenated (perhaps unless it enhances the international harmony these days). We all know that the nationality issue has been a political playground. In my opinion, the best way to move forward is to get rid of the nationality in the article and, if anything, introduce a separate section in which more narrow (and uncontroversial or well supported) statements can be made. The article should be based facts. The reasonably established facts appear to be: the place of her birth, who her parents were, where she lived, what language she used to write, etc.

Frankly, I think that such "nationality" disputes in the 21st century are shameful. If anything, the most reputable and potentially unbiased references e.g., the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica call Maria "Silesian". Why wouldn't this adjective be good enough today in a en.wikipedia article? The nationality did not play as significant a role at the time of Maria's life as it (apparently still) does today. Is there really a need to tag Maria's dead body with a national label today?

Best regards, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stan, first Wikipedia is not about "The Truth" but about Verifiability. Reliable sources establish Maria's nationality as such. If you don't like the sources, take it up with RS page - but these are perfectly respectable sources. The fact that other sources claim another ... actually they claim another 'citizenship' (German), since there was no Poland at the time ... something, in those cases both sources should be included. This is why the article says "Polish-German astronomer from Silesia" - to reflect the different way that this is reported in the sources. The thing here is that she was Polish/Silesian but because of the geopolitics of the time she was forced to be a German citizen - so some sources call her "German". But this is the difference between an ethnicity (Polish/Silesian) and a nationality (by force, German). The article is already based on facts.radek (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What is verifiable is that "the source A claims that she was nationality X". The claim that "She was nationality Y", even if supported by a reference, is not good if it is contradicted by other references. Particularly if it is contradicted by what is a more reputable source (Encyclopedia Britannica). At least some basis should be given on why such an extraordinary claim is made. However, the source seems to lack the basis for its claims. Hence, it is not reputable. It just comes with "Maria Kunicka (1620-1664) is considered the first Polish woman astronomer." (Storm Dunlop, Michèle Gerbaldi "Stargazers ...", 1988, page 40.) This appears to make 3 rather extraordinary claims in 1 sentence, including a different year of birth. It does not give any basis for any of them. It does not look like quite a credible source on Maria's biography. Stan J. Klimas

The fact that you call the claim (that she was Polish) "extraordinary" immediately reveals your bias here. There are multiple sources which refer to her as Polish. There are multiple sources which refer to her as German. There are also multiple sources which say she's from Silesia. Hence "Polish-German from Silesia" - what's the problem with that? And yes, all of these sources are respectable - if you have a problem with any of them, bring it up at RSN. I also like how when you move all the "nationalistic crap" down to its own section you also immediately emphasize her Germaness and de-emphasize here Polishness.radek (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about some discussion, rather than instantly reverting other editors Stan? Here are the problems with your version of the nationality section

1) "usually characterized as Silesian" - she's characterized as Silesian in the 1911 EB. Sure. But where do you get the "usually" from? That's your own OR there.

2) Habsburg Monarchy - this is simply irrelevant as the Habsburg empire was a multi-ethnic state and this doesn't say anything about her ethnicity. Was she Hungarian? Serb? Wallachian? It's just simply UNDUE.

3) While she has indeed been described as German by the relevant source the part about "As attested by her writing, she was from the German-language culture" is complete OR on your part. You need a source that says that "her writting attests that she was German" - not just pull that "attestin'" out of thin air. Likewise, please provide a reference which states that she was from a "German-language culture" - how do you know this? She was from a Polish-German culture, a mixed one (per sources).

4) You talk about how "such "nationality" disputes in the 21st century are shameful" yet, in moving the material from head to its own "nationality" section you engage in POVed OR with words like "usually", "attests" and then by putting in "some" next to any mention of her Polishness (to make it seem like "some"=few and in between, which isn't the case) which seeks to minimize the Polish aspect and maximize the attention paid to the German aspect (based, again, on your own OR). So if such disputes are shameful, why are you engaging in them? I'm fine with presenting her as German-Polish-Silesian and listing the relevant sources, letting the reader click on them (with out being prejudiced by being told that something is "usually" while other things "attest" and only "some" are) and make up their own mind.radek (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Move

In that case, why not move the whole article to Maria Cunitia?radek (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek: the spelling "Cunitz" seems the most often used and recognizable. I think the a page move would not serve an increased recognition of Maria's name. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But it seems like it to you only! It seems like "Kunic" to me. And in fact that is not what you were arguing earlier - you were saying that Cunitia' should be used because that is what was her (Latin) signature. So move it to Cunitia. It's neutral, isn't it?radek (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthead!!!

The German Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for the English Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Especially not to source the fact that some names are spelled in German). This is the second time you've done this in the past few days. You've been on Wikipedia since at least Jan 2007 - you know this is not how Wikipedia works. I've already asked you about it once - so you know that now you're just being disruptive. You're already on restriction. Please self revert.radek (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

tag

Karasek, if you're going to add a "disputed" tag, then please explain on talk what exactly is being disputed. After all, the tag does say "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. ".radek (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

agree.--Jacurek (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could Stan J. Klimas explain exactly what "factual accuracy" is disputed here, since he reinserted the tag? I will remove the tag if not clear. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, I do not like nationalistic disputes; therefore, I will not describe the (alleged) factual inaccuracy(ies). However, the fact remains that the article current factual content can, as as you can see is, disputed. I believe that removal of this kind of tags requires some kind of a consensus. Best regards and happy Wikipedia editing, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stan, but what "accuracy" we are talking here about? This is all I'm asking. There is already dispute tag in place (neutrality). Again, please explain what is inaccurate in the article that is disputed or remove the tag. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you add the tag to the article then yes, you need to explain why.radek (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is why: i think the article about her nationality is unnecessary and the article uses some very strange sources which are, IMHO, not exactly trustworthy (one source uses Wikipedia, another source is hosted on Tripod).

To me the entire discussion about her nationality lacks a deeper understanding of Silesia at that time. Silesia at that time was largely German with Polish and Czech minorities. Cunitz was born and lived in the German part of Silesia. Her name, like many German names, is derived from a Slavic name, since, in the centuries before, Germans and Slavs mixed in the area to the east of the Elbe river. Silesia, like Saxony today, had many of these names, like Nostitz, Maltitz, Carlowitz, Zezschwitz or Reipitzsch. Cunitia was her chosen Latin name, something which was very common among educated people during that time. When Cunitz took refuge in Poland during the Thirty Years War (the Protestants of Silesia moved either to Saxony, Brandenburg or Poland in large quantities) she became part of the Polish public consciousness. In Poland it's pretty common to change foreign names, just think about Aniol Slezak, Jan Krzysztof Glaubitz, Wit Stwosz or Marcin Luter. So, the Poles probably know her as Kunicka or something like that for more than 300 years now. In contrast to Luther/Luter or Stoß/Stwosz however she isn't that well known to the public and the circumstances of her birth aren't known either. That's where all the uncertainty comes from. Karasek (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me but I don't agree with you on most points you presented and especially I question your way of thinking about Silesian Poles such as Kunicka. All this falls under dispute neutrality tag since we all have some POV (you also;)) on many things. Please explain what is inaccurate in this article. Her year of birth? Place of birth? Names of her parents? Main activities? Date of death? ... etc.?? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of these facts are simply based on some very dubious sources. One of them is hosted on Tripod, a free web host, and lacks any information about the author. Another source, Scienceray, has no information about the authors either, and the article is probably based on Wikipedia. How about some credible sources? Google books should offer more than enough. Karasek (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that by "some of these facts" you're referring to the fact that this article has the temerity to have the word "Polish" in it, in addition to German and Silesian. Google books are already in the sources: [3], [4], [5]. Some of these were already in the article but seem to have disappeared. radek (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How in the world does this source...

...that Henryk was German [6]?radek (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Line 9: "Occupation/notes: aus Liegnitz/Schlesien; Dt. Arzt" means "Occupation/notes: from Liegnitz/Silesia; German physician". "Dt." is a abbreviation for Deutsch and means German. Karasek (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy, and you were complaining about sketchy sources. Sorry, not enough. How about we just leave his ethnicity out of it.radek (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In German this source is unambiguous, and the source itself (German Research Society and several topnotch universities and institutions) is very trustworthy. And why should we leave out her ethnicity just now? A number of users so long tried so hard to establish a consensus, I think it would be unfair to them... now that we know the nationality of her father and the name of her mother a consensus is closer than ever! :) Karasek (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not hers, his. Also "German doctor" doesn't necessarily imply ethnicity.radek (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the source clearly states that he was an ethnic German (to my knowelage he was not German by the way) this source is usseless.--Jacurek (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If your knowledge is supported by sources just add them. My source clearly states that he was a German doctor. And the source itself is probably the best source in the whole article, since it is a academic site(!).

Here is the entry for "dt." in the German Wiktionary, which clearly shows that "dt." is the abbreviation for German: http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/dt.

And here you can check the Duden, who says the same: http://www.duden-suche.de/ Karasek (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

German Wiki is not a source and another is not clear. Please find one of Henryk Kunicki Bio that clearly sates that he was a pure German of German parents and German heritage. Also please be careful, you reverted three editors on these issue 4 times today already and if somebody reports this, and I think somebody will if you continue edit warning, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We are on the talk page, and the German Wiktionary was only mentioned to show what the abbr. "dt." means. I also gave a Duden link, in case you don't like Wiktionary. The term "dt. Arzt" can only be translated as "German doctor", since the German word for German-speaking would be "deutschsprachig".

And I did a search on "Henryk Kunicki" at Google books, and there was not a single result related to the subject of this page. There are, however, many results for "Heinrich Cunitz" and even some for "Heinrich Kunitz" which actually are related to our subject. Karasek (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Now what exactly is wrong with these sources?

I tried to add two sources which were deleted again and again. The two sources are:

http://www.vd17.de and http://d-nb.info

VD17 is a bibliographic project which intends to establish a German National Bibliography of the 17th century imprints. It is a project of several national libraries, among them the Bavarian, Saxon and former Prussian state library. D-NB is the German national library.

Both sources give the following sentence, which I want to add: "aus Liegnitz/Schlesien; Dt. Arzt". The abbr. "dt." means deutsch = German (which you can check here: http://www.duden.de/). The 1:1 translation of the sentence therefore is "from Liegnitz/Silesia; German doctor". That's exactly the information I wanted to add: Mr. Cunitz was a German doctor from Liegnitz. Nothing more. Why are these two sources insufficient? Two reverts were justified with the argument that the sources aren't reliable or not good enough. Why are German state and national libraries not reliable or good enough? Another revert was justified with the argument that the sources don't say clearly that he was "pure ethnic German". Nobody is "pure ethnic German", but the sentence can only be translated as "German doctor". Karasek (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the above links say anything about Mr. Cunitz. And for a controversial claim like this you need more than just a "dt" - if he was German then it shouldn't be hard to find other sources which specifically refer to him as such.radek (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are your links:

http://gso.gbv.de/xslt/DB=1.28/SET=1/TTL=3/PPN?PPN=00458600X

http://d-nb.info/gnd/122459237

The links offer his name and alternative names, his years of life, his profession, his hometown and his nationality. Karasek (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Karasek, in my opinion these attempts by you to portray Maria's father as a pure German by inserting weak and unclear sources are to suggest that Maria Cunitz was pure German herself. The reason why I'm coming to this conclusion is your edit history record on this page such as removal of Polish names[[7]] etc. To my knowledge Maria came from mix Polish-German family as we would describe them today but at the time they did not think about themselves this way. If anything, they would probably say that they are Silesians. I say leave his ethnicity alone or describe him as Silesian doctor if you insist. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, why should I? The entire discussion page is about her nationality, and in the last month almost all edits were about her nationality too. If I look at the edit history of this page your main concern was the nationality of Maria Cunitz. Shouldn't you be happy about every new source? And what about my sources is weak and unclear? Abbreviations aren't a purely German concept, and state and national libraries are very reliable sources here at Wikipedia?! At least considered more reliable than Tripod links.

And I removed the Polish names because they were not relevant and not sourced. Silesia wasn't part of Poland back then, there should be a good reason to add them, like a stay in Poland or a Polish descent. If your knowledge is supported by sources, just add them. Karasek (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well.. if you continue to suggest that the Cunitz family were PURE GERMANS with weak sources and content manipulation (eg. Father German then "obviously" Maria also a German etc.) then we will never come to the consensus here, simply because I and many others do not think this is true and we refer to the sources already in the article. (some of which kept disappearing "mysteriously" in the past). If you look at Jan Dzierzon or Copernicus pages for example, this problem is ongoing and not limited only to this page. Regards --Jacurek (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't suggest anything. I only want to add two sources. I don't care for Copernicus or Jan Dzierzon. If you miss some sources you can restore them. Karasek (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are informations given by German national and state libraries reliable and worth mentioning?

I try to add a literal translation of a information given by two sources:

• http://d-nb.info/gnd/122459237
• http://gso.gbv.de/xslt/DB=1.28/SET=1/TTL=3/PPN?PPN=00458600X

The sources are the German national library and a project of several German state libraries. Both sources state that Maria Cunitz' father was a German doctor (literal translation), IMHO a information worth mentioning since the main concern of several other users in the last weeks was her ethnicity. So, my question is: are the sources reliable, and is the given fact worth mentioning? Karasek (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - If there has been concern over her ethnic identity, establishing that her father was German would certainly be relevant. However, as I cannot read German, I have no idea whether those sources are reliable or whether the translation is accurate. However, they both just appear to be catalogue entries from the database of the German National Library; how would a catalogue entry establish such a fact? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The catalogue entry gives the following information: "Weitere Angaben: aus Liegnitz/Schlesien; Dt. Arzt". Literal translation: "further information: from Liegnitz (Legnica)/Silesia; (Ger)man doctor". Exactly the information we need. Karasek (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By your translation, that doesn't say anything about her father. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Karasek (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I should say that he was an ethnic German and father of Maria Cunitz. Please stop suggesting German ethnicity of Maria by inserting misleading sources.--Jacurek (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Two sources removed

WP:SPS clearly states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[5]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

The two sources used here are websites, which both aren't reliable. Tripod is a free web host, Scienceray looks like a publishing service. Both authors are unknown. Karasek (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts removed

In the paragraph about nationality important facts are being removed by Karasek. He claims that it is irrelevant ("nonsense") that Silesia was part of Poland before it was part of Bohemia even though this is the reason of the existence of Polish population in those lands till its reunification with Poland in the 20th century.

That is the reason that Maria Cunitz is treated as a Pole. Polish speach was present in those areas due to the long lasting presence of the Polish state in the previous centuries.

On the other hand he saves information that those lands were part of Prussia 100 years after Maria lived and part of German Empire/Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany 200 years later.

It is obvious that her nationality and mother tongue could be affected only with facts that took place before she was born and during her life and not 100 or 200 years later.

Becouse those actions (deleting facts of Polish presence in those Lands and leaving irrelevant facts) are obviously a German POV (what German Empire has to do with Maria Cunitz I really cant tell) I must act and restore those information.

It is really sad to me that such things happen in the 70th aniversary of the outbreak of World War II which among other reasons was caused by nationalistic German thinking about their presence in the east. I hope that some reflections about the milions of victims of German nationalism will clear your minds. I trully hope so.

213.238.121.179 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The nonsense was the 9th century, the 14th century, the claim that Silesia was still somehow Polish while being part of Bohemia and that it was conquered by Bohemia. Get your facts right and offer references, thank you. Karasek (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was written that Lower Silsia was from 9th to 14th century usually part of Poland being under Bohemian control or semiindependant for several decades There is nothing wrong in this sentence.

It wasn't stated that it was Polish after 1331 (14th century).

Now a quote: In 1327 John of Bohemia invaded Poland in order to gain the Polish crown. After the intervention of King Charles I of Hungary he left Polonia Minor, but on his way back he enforced his supremacy over the Upper Silesian Piasts. In February 1327 five principalities were carved out of Polish Upper Silesia and placed under Bohemian suzerenity: Duchy of Niemodlin, Duchy of Cieszyn, Duchy of Racibórz, Duchy of Koźle and Bytom and the Duchy of Oświęcim and Zator. In April the dukes of Opole and Wrocław also became the tributaries of king John. Enforcement of supremacy while returning from a war with an army is a kind of conquest.

You were coediting the Silesian Piasts article and you knew about sources that claim the shift of Silesia from Poland was in the 14th century and not in the 13th (1202) as Wieczerka nad some German historians claim. Yet you acted as if this was some nonsense compleatly new to you.

If you thought this fragment needed enhancement you schould have corrected it. Nevertheless you deleted those information. You left only the fragment that it was part of Bohemia as if nothing happened before that could influence her nationality. Thats POV

You also left information unrefernced and irrelevant to her natiolity problem that 100 and 200 years after her death Prussia conquered Silesia and that it was later part of German Empire. What German Empire has to do with Maria Cunitz's nationality I really cant tell.

Therfore as you can see my facts were right.

Your welcome 213.238.110.65 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

References

B-class review

Not far, but refs need work: some need formatting, a few are missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

references

Re [8] - Stan, I obviously was not referring to you. Ok. Which references are you talking about? I think that generally it's a good idea to use really old references, whether primary or secondary, for obvious reasons, particularly on potentially controversial subjects. Volunteer Marek  02:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Content removal - why

Why is the text being removed about the uncertainties of the date of birth of that nice lady?

Quote: "The year of Maria's birth is somewhat uncertain. No birth, baptism or similar documents have ever been located. The year was speculated about in the first major German-language publication about Maria Cunitz of 1798.[14] Dr. Paul Knötel appears to be the first to give the year 1604 as the year of Maria's birth.[15] This date seemed to make sense since her parents married the previous year. Other authors later appear to have repeated the same year. The proof that Maria was actually born in 1610 is furnished by an anthology with congratulation poems on her first wedding, in connection with a letter of Elias A Leonibus to Johannes Hevelius from the year 1651, found recently[when?] by Dr. Ingrid Guentherodt.[16][17]"

What is controversial about it? It seems quite to the topic of the art, contains results of contemporary research, explain previous, possibly wrong, date of birth, is relevant to other details of her life, e.g., the marriage at an unusually young age, is supported with academic references. Somebody is determined to change it to "Some evidence ..." and remove the refs and most text with no explanation. Please be nice and don't remove what others laboured on a lot to add value to the art. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See my comment right above. Specifically, that particular passage may be not that controversial, although it still relies on primary and very old sources. Words like "proof" in that context may be a bit strong.

The bigger problem is with the *other* parts I removed, which are controversial, and which are sourced to 19th century sources or even to some more or less random... map... from the 17th century, which hardly has anything to do with the text.

How about we put the above passage back in (though it'd be good to look for *secondary* sources) and take out the other stuff?  Volunteer Marek  08:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To the nature and age of the sources. The journal "Zeitschrift für mittlere deutsche Literatur" (2 citations) is peer reviewed, not a "primary source". Is year 1991 too old for wikipedia? I doubt it. The other "old" sources obviously indicate the origin of the (possibly faulty) "old" birthdate and as such must stay the same for all times, no newer ones could ever replace them any more. None of thousands of other publications with birthdate can replace those quoted by rules of citations that I know. I would suggest that, when in doubt, it is better not to remove legitimate looking sources. It may beautify or shorten the art in some cases, but it is sure to make others less than happy. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

To the strength of the term "proof". The text is sufficiently detailed so that the nature of the "proof" should be plain to the reader. The details that the reader might find missing are in the properly-cited sources. In brief: the claim is based on a piece of paper found and the strength (or weakness) of the (very old) claims otherwise is also made plain by pointing to their original sources, per the journal quoted. After reading the para, either birthdate found in thousands of other publications should be understandable to any careful reader. Cheers and have a good weekend. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Cunitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170224234905/http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf to http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Would like to add, "Cunitz's husband, Elias von Lowen, wrote a preface in Urania Propitia to cast out any rumors that it was Elias von Lowen that computed the tables and to show support for his wife." Alynbrwn (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I will be replacing and adding some information under the Life section. Alynbrwn (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)