Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

I propose that this article be given extended-protected status. It is experiencing an onslaught of neo-nazis. Meellk (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The article's "Successors" section states that "Scholars hold that sixty years after the publication of The Revolutions there were only around 15 astronomers espousing Copernicanism in all of Europe..."

That implies that all the 15 listed would have survived to the year 1603.

At least two of them died before then: Tiedemann Giese (1550) and Rheticus (1574).

Nihil novi (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we assume Copernicus' nationality can be Polish? Absolutiva (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:Do you have NEW evidence that goes beyond those that have been debated here for a decade or two?

:If not, leave it as it is.

:See my above comment that starts with "We have been through this". ASchudak (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The section on theological controversy begins with an example quote from Calvin. The cited source for this is Rosen (1960). Rosen argues that Calvin has been misquoted as opposed to Copernicus, and concludes "What, then, may we ask at the end of our inquiry, was Calvin's attitude toward Copernicus? Never having heard of him, Calvin had no attitude toward Copernicus." He also points out that Calvin was in favor of astronomy generally.

I'd suggest removing the reference to Calvin in the opening of the section, and going directly to the material about Joshua's long day which was the historic locus of most theological controversy about Copernican astronomy. Dtjohnso (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:I read the abstract and it appears Calvin never spoke about Copernicus. Calvin's mention of Jericho (where God stopped the sun) also appears not to have been directed to Copernicus.

:Also, why does the section spend the majority of its time talking about Protestants before briefly mentioning the Catholic Church and even then downplaying its role in suppressing heliocentrism?

:The section should be re-written from scratch. TFD (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Re|Eem dik doun in toene}} Do you mind explaining to me what's been discussed, please? It doesn't make sense to me that a biographical article should omit the subject's nationality in the lead when it's standard practice literally everywhere else to state it. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please take a look at the talk archives of this page, or the "Nationality" discussion above (from 3 months ago). ASchudak's response summarises this. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)